All nations live in fear of one another, and we all have large
militaries for protection. This creates the impression that humans are
incredibly violent and dangerous, but as I emphasize over and over in
this section, we are fools to live in fear of one another.

I will go over lots of evidence
to show that humans are actually very kind, peaceful, and generous. I will
show that the reason there is so much crime, loneliness, divorce, starvation,
rape, mental illness, sex slavery, alcoholism, obesity, and other problems
is because humans are too nice to deal
with destructive and defective people. We want to help people,
not hurt them. We want to
forgive criminals, not kill
them. Our militaries are intended to prevent war, not to start war.

As I will show, we need to be less nice in order to create more
peace; we must become more violent in order to reduce
the suffering.

Animals do not
have frivolous qualities

Animals are biological robots
that have no desires or thoughts. They neither enjoy life, nor dislike
life. They have no leisure activities, either. Everything animals do has
a very important reason for it. For example, we assume that whales
are "playing" and "having fun" when they jump out of the water, but animals
don't "have fun". All of their behavior that we interpret as "playfulness"
or as "leisure activities" developed for a very serious reason simply because
the competitive struggle for life does not
permit frivolous qualities. Animals
have only the qualities that are truly necessary
for their survival and reproduction. (I have more about this
concept in Part_3 of
my Dumbing Down series.)

When fish began adapting to life on land many millions of years ago,
they began to lose the qualities that were no longer necessary, such as
their scales and slimy coating. After adapting to the land, some of the creatures
went back into the water and became whales and dolphins, but they
had lost some of the qualities that they needed for life in the water.
Their skin, for example, became slightly
different after adapting to life on the land. Therefore, it's possible
that the reason they jump out of the water so often is to compensate for
their different skin. Perhaps this is their method of removing parasites
and barnacles.

Some smaller dolphins and whales can jump completely
out of the water, and even do flips!
People assume that they are "having fun", but these jumps require their
full
power output, and they would not
routinely
exert such enormous amounts of energy simply for entertainment. You might
find it useful to put on some flippers, go underwater, and then swim up
as fast as you can and try to rise completely out of the water. That should
show you that this activity is an incredible athletic
event, not a casual recreational event.

Every physical and mental quality of an animal is necessary
for its survival and reproduction. Animals do not have frivolous or useless
qualities. Since humans evolved from animals, that means we can understand
our mental and physical qualities by looking at how those qualities were
vital
for animals and primitive humans. For example, the violent
temper that men have makes no sense if you consider humans to
be a creation of a God, but the same emotion can be seen in animals, and
it can be seen to have a valuable role in their lives. Nothing about the
human mind or body is
frivolous. All
of our characteristics have sensible
reasons for their existence.

In order to improve our lives, we need to understand the purpose
of our characteristics. For example, in order to improve marriages and
relationships between men and women, we must understand that love, romance,
and sex developed only to serve a function,
not to entertain us. We also have to realize that we have qualities that
serve as checks and balances. The more accurately we understand ourselves,
the better we will be at understanding our problems and figuring out how
to design a better society. We need to face the fact that the human mind
is modification of a monkey brain.

Animals are fearful and suspicious,
not
violent

Animals don't have the intelligence to figure out which animals
are truly interested in eating them, and which are harmless, and they have
no way of determining whether a loud noise is meaningless, or if it's a
sign that they are about to be flooded by a river that has overflowed its
banks. The animals that survived the battle for life were those that became
extremely alert when they heard a loud noise, or when they saw some other
animal die, or when they found themselves in any unusual situation. Animals
evolved into a creature that was suspicious of everything, and constantly
on the lookout for danger.

However, it is important to notice that there is no animal that engages
in recreational killings. Everything an animal does has a reason, but there
is no reason for recreational killings. In fact, killing for recreational
purposes would be a waste of an animal's energy and time. Therefore, the
animals that engage in recreational killings would be at a disadvantage
compared to those who didn't have any interest in such an activity. The
competitive battle for life favors the animals who put time and effort
only into important activities, not recreational killings.

Occasionally an animal, especially a pet cat or dog, will kill another
animal for what appears to be recreation, but there is always a sensible
reason for their killings. Pet cats, for example, are constantly hunting
birds, flies, mice, butterflies, lizards, and other creatures, but not
because they enjoy killing. Rather, they have a craving to hunt and feed
themselves, but since humans provide them with excessive amounts of food,
they're not always hungry enough to eat what they kill.

No animal developed an emotional craving to kill. The carnivores like
to hunt, but hunting is not "recreational
killing". If any animal truly had an emotional craving to kill other creatures,
then they would be doing so all the time. Consider that a dog will try
to have sex with your leg. The dog doesn't make any attempt to be romantic
with you. He simply grabs your leg and tries to satisfy himself. If dogs
had cravings to kill, they would behave in a similar manner. Specifically,
they would simply look for something to kill. However, dogs don't
want to kill. They want to hunt.
Pet dogs want humans to throw sticks for them to chase after because they
enjoy hunting. If dogs enjoyed killing, then they would not
need us to throw the stick. They would simply attack the sticks,
balls, and other objects. The difference may seem subtle, but it's very
important in understanding animal and human behavior.

Animals routinely get into fights over territory, status, and mates,
and this can create the impression that animals are violent, but it's important
to note that they don't actually want to kill one another. In fact,
the reason that they make so much noise during their fights is because
their first preference is to intimidate their opponent with frightening
displays of noise and teeth. Animals avoid
violent fights, especially with their own species.

Humans did not
develop an emotion to kill

Since animals avoid violent fights, that means humans evolved
from a creature that avoids fights. Therefore, the theory that humans
enjoy
violence or war requires that during the evolution of animals into humans,
a new emotion developed in our ancestors;
specifically, an emotion that gives us pleasure
from violence, or from killings or suffering. However, it is
extremely
unlikely that we developed a new emotion. Some important concepts in regards
to evolution are:

• It is very easy for existing
qualities to deteriorate.• It is time-consuming for
an existing quality to be altered by
a small amount.
• It is even more time-consuming for an existing quality
to evolve into a noticeably improved
version.
• It is incredibly rare for new
qualities to appear from nothing.

It might help you to understand how this concept applies to our mind if
you first consider how it applies to our body. The human body is just a
modification of a monkey body. We have the same bones, veins, tendons,
and organs that the monkeys have. Humans didn't develop any new physical
features. Since we didn't develop any new physical features, what are the
chances that we developed some new mental features?

The human brain is just a modification of a monkey brain. It's not likely
that we developed any new mental qualities. It's more likely that some
of the monkey qualities deteriorated a bit, others were altered
a bit, and others became more advanced.

Since animals do not enjoy violence
or recreational killings, humans should not enjoy violence or recreational
killings, either. And this is exactly
what we see all throughout history. Although people are frequently getting
into arguments and fights with one another, we go out of our way to avoid
killing one another. We don't even like looking at people who are bleeding,
and we don't like looking through torn skin at
the organs underneath. We have so much of a problem with blood and death
that it takes us a while to get accustomed to being a nurse
or doctor. Nobody needs to become accustomed to food, flowers, grass,
trees, sex, sunshine, or water, but we have to become accustomed to blood,
surgery, hypodermic needles, and dead bodies.

It is difficult for us to inject
insulin into diabetics

If humans were truly violent creatures who enjoyed killing
and hurting people, then we would have no problem injecting insulin into
diabetics. In fact, we would enjoy watching the person suffer a
bit of pain. However, we have trouble giving people injections, even when
we realize that we are helping the person, and even when we realize that
the pain is trivial and very brief.

We don't like the idea that we are hurting
a person, and we don't even want to watch a person be hurt, even
when it's trivial, such as from injecting
insulin. We don't enjoy watching people suffer. We don't even enjoy
looking at the photos of needles going into people's bodies. If
we truly enjoyed hurting people, we would enjoy
these photos. We even have trouble pulling Band-Aids off of children, even
though that is even more trivial than giving injections to diabetics.

We cannot kill the severely mentally
retarded babies

We can easily accept people with minor physical
deformities, but we do not like people
with serious mental deformities. Some
people, especially women, enjoy feeling sorry for the mentally retarded,
but we don't actually like them. Nobody wants them as neighbors, spouses,
or friends. We don't even enjoy looking at photographs of their bizarre
facial expressions, and we don't like listening to their nonsensical remarks
and noises. We hide the mentally retarded people in "human garbage dumps",
such as orphanages and hospitals.

We don't like retarded people, so
why are we letting them live? If humans were truly a violent creature that
enjoyed killing, wouldn't we kill the retarded people rather than waste
our resources taking care of thousands
of them? Why are we willing to take care of people that we
don't like? Why don't we kill them? The reason is simply because
humans have such incredibly powerful inhibitions against killing
people that we don't want to kill even
the most hopelessly retarded people. We would rather push the retarded
people into a "human trash pit".

Consider how this issue relates to the concept of war and peace. Why
should the people in Russia or China be afraid that Americans will kill
them when we cannot kill mentally retarded people? One of the most extreme
examples that I've mentioned in my files is this
mother who is taking care of a baby that doesn't
have a brain. If we can't kill a baby that doesn't have a brain,
then why would we want to kill healthy, happy people in Russia or China?

It should be obvious that humans have such incredibly powerful inhibitions
about killing that we don't want to kill any
human, not even the most severely defective people. So why would we kill
healthy
people? The answer is, we don't want to kill anybody!
We are not violent creatures. We do
not
enjoy death or killing. We do not want war. So why are we building
militaries to protect ourselves from war? Who
is going to attack us? Who among us
actually wants a war?

We cannot kill even the hopelessly
deformed babies

We tolerate minor physical deformities without any trouble,
but there are some babies born with physical deformities that prevent them
from functioning properly in society. How about these
twin girls who are joined at the head? They are apparently sharing a portion
of their brain. They are among the
very few "Craniopagus
twins" who are in good health. Do we consider this creature as one
girl with two bodies? Or as two girls with one brain? If this
creature wanted to get married, would it need one husband or two?

How extreme does a deformity have to be before we can control our emotions
and kill the creature? For example, what if these girls had been joined
farther down along their faces so that all four of their eyes were inside
their skulls, and only their two mouths were exposed?

These two girls are just as happy as all other babies because they are
still very young. However, soon their twin brains will have developed to
the point at which they realize that there is something seriously
wrong with them. Or maybe one half of the brain will figure this out, but
the other won't. They are still too young to know exactly what condition
their brains are in.

If each of these girls end up with functional brains, then both of them
will eventually realize that people feel sorry for them, but nobody
really likes them. They will have a very lonely life, and they will
spend a lot of their time wondering,
"If there
is a God, why did he do this to me and my sister?"

These girls might have some scientific value, but they're never going
to be happy. A lot of people talk themselves into believing that
allowing these type of children to live is showing "compassion" and "love",
but life is however you want to look at it. Allowing these two girls to
live is certainly providing them with life,
but unless they enjoy life, what good
will life do them?

Animals do not care about the quality
of their life

Animals are biological robots that merely exist; they
do not enjoy life. When animals raise
babies, their only concern is that their babies are alive. Animals
don't have any concern about the quality
of their children's lives. An animal doesn't even care about the quality
of its own life. You can cut off the
legs and arms of a dog, and you can poke out both of its eyes, and you
can cut out its tongue and pull out some of its teeth, but it won't care.
It will continue living just as if it was in good health. It
will be just as happy. Removing a leg from a dog is like removing
a windshield wiper from an automobile. We assume that the dog is suffering,
but the dogs don't understand or care. It requires a tremendous amount
of intelligence to understand the concepts of life, death, and suffering.
It also requires a tremendous amount of thinking
to understand the concept of the quality of life.

The human mind is just an intelligent version of that stupid, animal
brain. We have powerful cravings to take care of every baby, and we have
powerful inhibitions about killing people, and so we will struggle to keep
every baby alive. However, we do not have any emotion that is concerned
about the quality of our children's
lives. We also struggle to keep the old and sickly people alive, even if
they have had so many strokes that their brains are no longer functioning.
We have no concern whether old people are enjoying life or
suffering.
Our crude emotions do not want to see anybody die,
but we don't care whether they enjoy life. We want to see people
alive,
but we don't care what type of life they have.

The people who allow severely retarded babies to live believe that they
are compassionate, but they are just stupid animals
who are following their crude emotions to keep everything alive with no
concern about the quality of life. If those two girls who are joined at
their heads never enjoy their lives, then letting them live is not
compassionate. Rather, it's torturing two girls; it's forcing two
girls to suffer a very long, lonely, and miserable existence. We
could say that allowing those two girls to suffer is actually very cruel.

To make the situation even more ridiculous, many of the people
who believe that they are "compassionate" for allowing retarded babies
to live are doing nothing about the
Jewish crime network that is starting wars, murdering people, raping children,
and cheating people out of their money. How many children were killed in
the Mideast war that the Jews started by staging the 9/11 attack? How many
children were killed in Europe during the two world wars that the
Jews instigated? If the people who oppose the killing of retarded babies
were truly compassionate, then their first priority would be to stop
the Jews
and their incredibly destructive wars, murders, rapes,
sex slavery, and other crimes.

There are unwanted children all
over the world, many of whom are suffering a miserable,
lonely life in orphanages or the city streets, and some of them are abused
by government officials and crime networks, but how many of the
"compassionate" people care about the suffering that is occurring
all over the world? Those compassionate people want everybody to live,
but they don't care about the quality of anybody's life. The reason
is because they are not truly "compassionate". Rather, they are just stupid
animals who are following their crude emotions.

Our emotions react to abortions,
not crime networks

A lot of people, especially those who call themselves "conservatives",
try to prevent euthanasia, abortion, and the killing of retarded people.
However, very few of those people are trying to stop the Jewish crime network.
Why are they so concerned about stopping abortion but not a gigantic, international
and extremely destructive crime network?

The people who oppose abortions realize that our emotions
are directly stimulated by photos,
so the title of this
article starts with: "How could anyone look at this
photo..."

I think the reason people become so hysterical over abortion
but not over the Jewish crime network is because our emotions are directly
stimulated by images of people being killed, but a crime network
is an intangible concept that doesn't
directly stimulate our emotions. In order for a person to become upset
with what the Jews are doing, he must do some research and thinking,
and he needs a certain amount of intelligence
to understand how dangerous and damaging the Jews are to the world.

I think the majority of people have
the intelligence that is necessary to understand that the Jews are committing
horrendous crimes, but most people
don't want
to think, or do any research. Most people want to
entertain themselves, not deal with the complex issues of the
modern world. They want to watch television, get drunk, play with their
dogs, gamble, have sex, eat food, and play with children.

We have incredibly powerful inhibitions about death, so we can trigger
hysteria in people by showing them photographs of aborted fetuses, but
talking to people about the Jewish crime network results in a blank expression
on most people's faces. The end result is that people can be easily worked
into a frenzy over abortion, but most people are unaffected by discussions
about the Jewish crime network, or they try to hide from the issue. This
in turn allows the network to thrive and slowly destroy our economy, take
over our media, instigate wars, and ruin our culture.

Dealing with the problems of the modern world requires intelligence,
discussions, and research. I think the majority of people have the intelligence
necessary to deal with a lot of the problems we face, but I don't think
many people have the ability to control their
emotions well enough to make intelligent decisions. And I don't
think many people have much of an interest in thinking, anyway.
Most people want to play, not think.

We don't attack Israel,
so why would we attack China?

Israel is the only nation that I'm aware of that has been continuously
killing, kidnapping, and torturing people from nations all around the world.
The Jews also instigate wars, cheat us in business and banking, and even
manipulate the Nobel prizes. Israel is the only nation that can truly be
described with such adjectives as disgusting, sickening, nauseating, appalling,
and horrible. If any nation should live in fear of being attacked, it is
Israel. However, is any nation planning to attack Israel? I don't think
so. There are lots of people who fantasize about dropping nuclear bombs
on Israel, but most people, once they think about it, would rather destroy
the nation peacefully.

You might respond that the reason every nation is friendly with Israel
is because the Jews have fooled us into thinking that they are a wonderful,
honest group of people. That theory was valid until recently. Today there
are millions of people who realize
that Israel is a threat to the entire
world, and every day more people discover this. Anger is building towards
Israel and Jews, but I don't think any nation is planning to attack Israel.
The reason I can say confidently that no nation is planning to attack Israel
is because the history of the human race shows that no nation has ever
behaved like that. Humans do not want violence.
We would rather destroy Israel peacefully.

The only time the police and military use violence is when the enemy
either refuses to surrender or shows signs that they are going to attack.
Nobody in good mental health starts a deadly fight simply for entertainment.
Our first priority is to avoid fights. Therefore, as more people
around the world become more aware that Israel and the Jews are our only
enemy, there will be a point at which there are so many angry people that
there are enough people to confront Israel, and then Israel will have the
opportunity to surrender peacefully. And, believe it or not, most of the
Jews will surrender peacefully. The
reason I say this is because we can see this behavior all throughout history.
Most criminals, once the police have pointed their guns at them, will
surrender. There are only a few lunatics who prefer to die.

There will be a certain percentage of Jews who would rather die, but
they will be the minority. The majority of Jews are
going
to surrender. Some Jews boast about having a suicidal
Samson
option if the world doesn't obey them, but that's just an attempt to
frighten us into submission. Most Jews are not
suicidal. If Israel dared to attack any nation with nuclear or biological
weapons, other nations would defend themselves, and that would require
every nation to attack all Jews and all
supporters of Israel since we don't know which ones are involved.

Why is Israel the only
threat?

How is it possible that there is only one
nation that is a threat to world peace? The reason is that Israel did not
develop in a "normal" manner. All nations developed as people fought over
territory. Israel is the exception. It came about as a result of a crime
network that tricked other people into helping them get established.
Israel is not a true "nation". They are a network of freaks and
criminals.

No nation wants to start a war with Israel, even though Israel is a
dangerous threat to the entire human race. If we are not going to attack
an enemy of the world, why would we attack a nation that isn't a
problem to anybody? Why would America want to attack China? Why would China
want to attack America? Why would Britain want to attack France?

Every nation is behaving like stupid, frightened rabbits. We are building
enormous stockpiles of weapons to protect ourselves from... who? No healthy
human wants to throw his life away and start a war for entertainment. We
don't even want to start a war to protect ourselves from Israel.
We are building giant militaries to protect ourselves from imaginary
enemies. Our stupid emotions are causing us to live in fear of attack,
and causing us to fear the people in other nations, but we have to learn
to control our emotions. We don't have to fear the people in Japan,
China, or India. They're not interested in war. They don't want
to attack us any more than we want to attack them. They want to enjoy
life, just like we do. There are only a small number of psychotic, violent
people within each nation who truly want to start a war. We are foolishly
living in fear of a small number of freaks.

Instead of living in fear of other nations, and instead of pouring resources
into stockpiles of weapons to defend ourselves from other nations, the
American people should be getting rid of the destructive, parasitic, and
psychotic Americans. Those freaky Americans
are causing trouble for America, and they are pushing America into wars.
Likewise, the Russian people, instead of worrying about the Chinese or
the Americans, should start looking critically at the Russian
people and they should remove the violent, dishonest, parasitic, and psychotic
people from their government, schools, and media. Likewise, the Chinese
people should stop worrying about Japan, India, and Tibet and start dealing
with the violent, psychotic, dishonest, parasitic, and destructive Chinese
people. If every nation would deal with their violent, destructive, diabolical
freaks, the entire world would become dramatically and noticeably more
peaceful and friendly.

Citizens don't
want to use their guns

Millions of Americans have guns, but not because they
want to kill people. Rather, they are like frightened rabbits who want
the guns for defensive purposes. There is crime everywhere in America,
but the people with the guns will not use those guns to kill or
even arrest any of the criminals. Larry Silverstein, Steven Spielberg,
Jon Stuart, Mike Wallace, Barbara Walters, and lots of other Jews are routinely
lying to us about 9/11, the Holocaust, and other crimes, but the Americans
who have guns have no desire to kill any
of those criminals.

Since the Americans won't kill the Jewish criminals who are routinely
killing, lying, and abusing us, why should the Russian, Chinese, or other
people be afraid that the Americans might attack their nations?
If Americans enjoyed killing people, we would be killing all of the Jews
within our nation who staged the 9/11 attack, and who are lying about the
world wars, and who are cheating us in our financial and banking system,
and who are promoting Holocaust propaganda. Since we don't kill any of
these disgusting Jews, why would we want to kill people in India or China
who never caused us any trouble?

If humans were truly violent creatures, why would we purchase guns and
then leave them in storage while thousands
of criminal Jews are living among us? Sometimes the criminal Jews walk
past Americans who have guns in their
pockets
or in their cars, but none of the Jews have to worry that they might
be killed. None of the Americans
want to use their guns to kill
criminals. The Americans purchase guns because they are afraid of
criminals, not because they want to
kill
criminals. The Americans will use their guns only in extreme cases. They
want to hide from criminals, and they want the guns only for protection
in case a criminal attacks them.

Has any
society killed babies for entertainment?

Have you noticed that one of the ways the Jews instigate wars
is by spreading rumors that another nation is killing
babies simply for entertainment?
For example, do you remember the incident in 1990 in which we were told
that Saddam Hussein and his band of evil Arabs were killing babies in Kuwait
for entertainment? (I mentioned that years ago here.)

There are a lot of deaths during wars, and sometimes soldiers kill more
people than they "need" to, but there is no evidence that any group of
people has ever engaged in recreational killing. All of the killings are
the result of anger, frustration, disgust, or revenge, not "pleasure".
During war, soldiers are often irritated, frightened, hungry, angry, suffering
from lack of sleep or some type of illness, and that in turn can make them
much more irritable than they normally are, which in turn can result in
a lot more killings. However, it's important to realize that neither animals
nor humans truly have a "pleasure emotion" that is titillated by death,
blood, dead bodies, or screaming people. Therefore, we cannot truly experience
pleasure by hurting people.

Dead bodies grab our attention, but for the same reason that loud noises
grab our attention. Specifically, our attention is attracted by anything
that could signal a potential danger. We become more
alert by death and noises; we do not "enjoy" them. We are not
put into a pleasant, relaxed mood by death or loud noises. Rather, we become
more aware of potential dangers. Nobody is entertained by death.

If humans truly enjoyed killing babies, then we would love to
kill baby Jews. In fact, we might make a television show called
"Killing Jewish Babies with the Stars",
in which a group of soldiers teach people how to use bayonets. After a
period of training, the people would show us their abilities to toss Jewish
babies in the air and stab them with a bayonet before they hit the ground.
We would judge the participants according to their artistic
ability to move gracefully, and their technical
skills at performing the movements properly.

Why are children afraid of the dark?

Religion is giving people a distorted view of humans. If you
want to understand yourself, you have to look at animals, not the bible.
If you understand why children are afraid of the dark, then you will understand
the problem we are facing in regards to war.

Children are afraid of the dark because the children thousands of years
ago who had less of a fear of the dark sometimes wandered away from their
parents at night, and the end result was they were sometimes eaten by animals
or bit by spiders, and sometimes they fell off of cliffs, or fell into
ponds and drowned. The children who survived were those who were terrified
of the darkness, and who kept their arms close to their bodies while they
were sleeping. A child's fear of the darkness is a protective mechanism.
That fear is coming from within his own mind.

Animals evolved for a very brutal, competitive world, and so they assume
that danger is everywhere, and that they will be attacked at any moment.
Humans still have that fear that we will be attacked without warning, and
we are still very cautious and suspicious of everything that is unfamiliar.
We are cautious about trying something new.

This fear of the unknown and this fear of being attacked without provocation
was vital thousands of years ago to both animals and primitive humans,
but today it's causing a lot of trouble. This fear is causing every nation
to develop militaries for protection against every other nation. We are
getting carried away with this fear. We are wasting enormous amounts of
resources on weapons.

The same problem is happening at the level of the ordinary citizen.
We live in fear of being attacked by criminals. Millions
of American citizens have purchased guns and security devices for their
home, but this doesn't stop or prevent crime. Crime is widespread
throughout America despite all of these guns, and our government is full
of criminals, despite the guns, and our media is a network of
criminals, despite the guns. Purchasing a gun and hiding behind security
devices is behaving like a stupid, frightened rabbit. Instead of encouraging
the citizens to purchase guns for protection, it would make more sense
to change our society so that the criminals are
pursued and removed from society.

Likewise, when nations build militaries in order to defend themselves
from other nations, they are behaving like frightened rabbits. There are
only a few people in Russia or China who want to attack America, and they
are freaks. Why are we afraid of a
few freaks in Russia or China? Every nation should stop building militaries
to protect themselves from one another and start cleaning
their own nation of freaks, criminals, and parasites. Every
nation should try to become an inspiration to the others.

There is no market for recreational
killings

We kill rats, mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas, but we don't enjoy
the act of killing them. Our first preference is to avoid those
creatures. Killing those creatures is not a pleasurable, recreational
activity. We kill those creatures only because they are destructive and
parasitic. If humans truly enjoyed killing people or animals, we would
be doing so as a leisure activity. To understand this concept, consider
how large the market is for pornography and dolls. The market
for pornography is enormous because men have a strong attraction to sex,
and the market for dolls is enormous because women have strong attractions
to babies. If either men or women received pleasure from killing, then
businesses would offer us animals to kill, and they might also offer the
equivalent of Playboy magazines so that we could titillate ourselves with
pictures of killing and death. We do
look at photos of death, but it is because of our concern about
death, not because we get pleasure from death.

When we look at pictures of mountains, attractive people, rivers, and
flowers, we become relaxed and we enjoy the images, but when
we look at pictures of dead humans or animals, or of people being killed,
a completely different emotion is triggered. Photos of death and killing
attract our attention, but they don't make us relaxed or happy.

We have trouble executing
criminals who have been sentenced to death

If humans truly enjoyed killing people, then we would enjoy
the killing of criminals who have been sentenced to death.
However, every nation resists executing criminals, and in America, we go
to extremes to worry about a prisoner suffering a few brief moments of
pain. Why should we care if criminal experiences a few moments of pain?
People who die a "natural death" from old age usually suffer more
than the criminals that we execute!

Our inhibitions about killing people are so strong, and most people
have such a resistance to thinking, that most people follow their emotions
and assume that executing a criminal is wrong, and that we are being nice
when we let them spend their lives in jail. However, who benefits from
this policy? How do criminals benefit by spending their lives in jail?
What will the quality of their life be? And what type of a death
will they have in jail? They are likely to die in the same manner as the
rest of us; namely, a long and slow and painful death as a result of kidney
failures, strokes, heart attacks, or cancer.

Furthermore, consider the effect on society of keeping people in jail.
Resources that have to be spent maintaining all of the jails and keeping
all of the prisoners alive, and that means resources have to be diverted
from other projects. If we were to alter society so that criminals were
executed in a simple and inexpensive manner, then those resources could
go to projects that benefit society.

Life is however you want to look at it, so we could say that executing
the criminals is being nicer than locking
them in jail and letting them die slowly.

We forgive
criminals over and over and over

If humans were truly violent creatures who enjoyed killing
people, then wouldn't we enjoy killing people who are convicted of crimes?
Why would we punish a criminal briefly and then release him so that he
can have a second opportunity? And later, when a criminal is convicted
of a second crime, why would we once again punish him briefly, and
then give him a
third chance? And when he is found guilty of committing
a third crime, why would we give him a fourth chance? Why are we
so nice to criminals?

If humans were truly violent, and if we truly enjoyed killing people,
we would kill criminals as soon as
they were convicted of the first crime, and that would dramatically reduce
crime because it would never give a criminal the opportunity to commit
a second crime. The Japanese would love to kill their Yakusa
members, and the Chinese would love to kill their criminals, and we would
love to kill all of the pedophiles within the Catholic Church. However,
we don't want to kill criminals. We want to be
nice to them and help them.

What will we do with the Jewish criminals? Will we try to fix
those Jews by punishing them briefly and then releasing them back into
society so that they can have another opportunity at life? What will we
do if the Jewish criminals behave like children and beg for sympathy?

“We're so
sorry that we set up thousands of you to be killed and captured in Vietnam,
and that we started the world wars and the 9/11 attack. We were blinded
by our crazy religion. But we have since taken Jesus into our hearts, and
we can now see how wonderful you Goyim really are. Now we know that
you are the kindest, sweetest, most generous people. We appreciate you
now. We love you! Most Jews are honest, wonderful people. There
are only a few bad Jews.

Everybody is going to die, and most of us will die in a slow,
painful
manner over a period of many years.
Some people suffer so much during their final years that they beg for somebody
to put them out of their misery. However, we have such strong inhibitions
about killing that we have tremendous difficulty putting people out of
their misery. The end result is that we show no concern for the
suffering of old people, not even our own parents.
We are more concerned about whether a criminal
will suffer a brief moment of pain during his death. We are giving criminals
better
treatment than our own parents.

The woman in the photo,
who had cancer in her face, asked for somebody to put her out of her misery,
but news reports claim that she had to commit suicide because nobody would
do it for her. If humans were truly violent, and if we enjoyed killing
and hurting people, then we would enjoy putting people like her out of
their misery. Of course, we could interpret our refusal to kill people
like her as a sign that we enjoy watching people suffer a long and
slow death, but I don't think people were letting her live because they
enjoyed watching her suffer. I think that most people simply cannot overcome
their incredibly powerful inhibitions about killing people.

The intellectual portion of our brain can easily figure out that we
are being cruel when we force people like her to commit suicide, but our
inhibitions
about killing people are so powerful, and most people have so
little control over their emotions, that they follow their emotions
like a stupid animal rather than follow their intellect like
an advanced human. Most people also try to hide from the issue of euthanasia
and hope that it goes away, just like a stupid rabbit that hides in the
bushes.

A comedy routine could be created about this. For example, old
people at a convalescent hospital who want to die would help one another
commit
murders in order to be executed in a pleasant manner.
Since somebody convicted of murdering an "ordinary" person will remain
in jail for many years, these old people arrange to kill a policeman,
thereby upsetting the other policemen enough to kill them immediately.

That would be a funny comedy skit, wouldn't it? No, I don't think
it would be funny. It would actually be a description of the world today.
There are people all over the world wishing that they could die in a painless
manner, but nobody does anything. Convalescent hospitals have people
whose brains are no longer functioning as a result of strokes and other problems.
Those people are not even human. They're just pieces
of meat that exist. These decrepit old people are a burden on
society, and they are an emotional burden on their family members, but
we have such inhibitions about killing people that we can't put them out
of their misery.

Furthermore, this problem is getting worse every year because
medical technology is allowing us to keep even more
sickly people alive for longer periods. The people who want
to keep all of these decrepit old people alive are
not compassionate people. They are stupid animals who
can't handle the advanced medical technology of this era.

Slaughterhouses have trouble keeping
employees

If humans truly enjoyed the killing, then we would enjoy
killing animals at a slaughterhouse. And if we enjoyed killing humans,
then we would have a preference for killing the animals that more closely
resemble
humans, such as monkeys, or animals that make noises like humans, such
as pigs. But the opposite is true. The more closely an animal resembles
a human, the more difficult it is for us to kill it. This is more evidence
that humans do not want to kill other
humans.

Slaughterhouses have trouble keeping people at the job of killing animals
simply because we don't enjoy killing
animals or humans. We can easily kill an animal only when
we want to eat it because our desire for food can overpower our
dislike of killing.

We have trouble killing mice
and birds

Pigeons are a nuisance
in our cities, so if we enjoyed killing animals, we would love to kill those
pigeons. However, our inhibitions about killing are so strong that instead
of killing the pigeons, we try to chase them away with spikes and other
devices. Mice are also living in our cities, and some people have so much
trouble killing mice that there are businesses producing traps
to catch mice alive so that people can release
them after they capture them.

We humans treat animals better than animals treat
each other. For example,
this
article shows us how to catch mice in a "humane"
way. Why should we catch mice in a "humane" way? Why not catch mice in
the same way that cats, snakes, or birds catch mice? For example, why not
develop a small robot that watches for mice, and then grabs them with claws,
and then squeezes them to kill them?

We don't like to kill animals because we assume that animals are thinking
the same thoughts as us, but that is a ridiculous assumption. Animals don't
have enough intelligence to understand that they are being killed. Very
young children who are dying from automobile accidents can barely understand
the concept that they are dying, and they are much
more intelligent than a mouse.

Animals have so little intelligence that we can cut parts of their body
off and they continue with life as if nothing had happened. Animals cannot
understand the concept that they are missing their legs and arms. Very
young children who are born without arms and legs, or who lose body parts
from automobile accidents, don't realize that something is wrong with them
until they are many years old. It takes a tremendous
amount of intelligence to understand these concepts.

People purchase animals, but to
love
them, not
hurt
them

There is an incredibly large demand for dogs, cats, birds,
and other animals, but people are purchasing those animals to take care
of them, not to kill or hurt them. If humans were truly violent creatures
who enjoy killing and hurting, then businesses would be selling animals
to us so that we could entertain ourselves by killing and hurting them.
However, there has never been a group
of people anywhere in the world that has wanted to purchase animals simply
to hurt or kill them.

Some people might respond that there are people who purchase dogs and
roosters for fights, but those people are not trying to hurt
the animals. Each of them is taking care of his animal. They are behaving
very similar to the people who arrange for boxing matches in which
humans
fight each other. All male animals fight over status and territory, and
the females also fight. Fighting is a part of animal behavior, but it's
important to understand that the fighting is for a purpose.
It is not recreational. No animal kills
or hurts for pleasure.

Americans
are traumatized by people who eat or kill dogs!

On 28 December 2010, the television host Tucker Carlson said
that Michael Vick should have been executed
for "murdering"
dogs. We allow humans to fight in boxing
rings, so why not let dogs fight with
each other? I suppose the reason we don't like to see dogs fighting with
each other is that dogs fight with their teeth, and that causes a lot of
bleeding and damage to their faces. Sometimes it results in death. The
dogs are too stupid to understand or care about their injuries, but humans
have such inhibitions about bleeding and injuries that it bothers us to
see a bleeding dog.
(Incidentally, what will Tucker Carlson suggest we do
with all of the criminal Jews? Will he suggest we execute them all?
Or will he want us to be sympathetic to the Jews? I also have to wonder
if Michael Vick would have been sent to jail if he had been a Jew.)

If humans were truly violent creatures who enjoy death and suffering,
then some people would kill dogs for entertainment, and nobody would care
that people want to watch dogfights. However, we have such inhibitions
about killing, and Americans have such an attraction to dogs, that Americans
are not even allowed to kill dogs for food.

Furthermore, a lot of people become upset when a child pulls off the
wings of a fly. If humans were violent
creatures, why would we care about a fly? A fly doesn't have enough of
a brain to care whether somebody pulls its wings off, so having a concern
about the suffering of a fly is as irrational as being concerned that a
refrigerator is suffering as a result of a hot, summer day.

It's important for a society to pass judgment on who among us is exhibiting
undesirable behavior, including whether we want to permit dogfights,
but I don't think many people are capable of controlling their emotions
well enough to make intelligent decisions about these type of issues. Our
current policies in regards to animals are irrational
because most people are overly influenced by our incredibly powerful inhibitions
about death, suffering, and blood.

We need machines
to kill animals for us!

We like to eat animals, but we don't like killing them, cleaning
them, or even looking at their blood. We should face the fact that we are
not
violent creatures. If we were to develop machines to do the killing and
cleaning of animals, then we could keep the animals alive until
we are ready to eat them, which would provide us with fresh meat.

We should also develop machines to kill some of the animals in our cities,
such as rats, pigeons, and squirrels. For example, instead of setting spikes
on top of buildings to chase away birds, we could have some type of robotic
devices on the buildings to capture and kill the pigeons. We could also
create small robotic devices to capture and kill mice, rats, and even cockroaches.
We might even be able to develop machines to kill mosquitoes, perhaps with
lasers.

Don't encourage people to behave
irrationally

When you point out to people that they are being ridiculous
when they care about a horse that was killed for food, or a fly that had
its wings pulled off, or a mouse that was killed in a trap, they sometimes
respond by boasting that they are special people who love all animals.
Don't encourage this type of behavior. A human is not behaving in a loving
manner when he cares about a fly or a mouse. He is actually titillating
himself. He is masturbating. You should respond that he should stop
jerking himself off and behave in a more intelligent manner.

Why didn't Americans "have fun"
with nuclear
weapons?

If humans truly enjoyed killing people, then Americans would
have used their nuclear bombs during the 1940s to conduct killings of people
around the world. They had an unbelievable
opportunity at that time to attack other nations. However, instead of attacking
other nations, the Americans stockpiled nuclear bombs for defensive purposes.
This is equivalent to a lion building a giant wall around himself because
he's afraid a few mice might attack him.

The reason America never used its nuclear weapons is simply because
no nation wants to use them. We are
building nuclear weapons for the same reason a child is afraid of the dark;
we are afraid of imaginary enemies.
The only people who seem to be pushing for the use of nuclear weapons are
the Jews. The Jews have been trying
for decades to instigate a nuclear war between America and Russia, and
between America and China, and during December 2010, the Jews tried to
get a war going between North and South Korea, and then bring America and
China into it.

If it were not for the Jews stirring up trouble during the past few
centuries, would any nation have bothered developing nuclear weapons? Without
the Jews, there wouldn't have been any world wars, terrorist attacks, banking
scandals, or economic chaos. The 20th century might have been a very peaceful
era during which nuclear energy was developed only for peaceful purposes.

Wars are instigated,
not wanted!

Americans didn't casually decide to use nuclear bombs on Japan.
Rather, they agonized over it. I think we should look at who
in America was pushing for the use of those bombs, and who
in Russia was encouraging the Russian soldiers to rape, kill, and torture
the Germans at the end of World War 2, and who
was encouraging the Americans and British to bomb Dresden
and other cities. I would bet that an analysis of the wars would show that
they are very similar to the 9/11 attack and the resulting Mideast wars.
Specifically, I suspect that we will find that there were Jews
secretly operating in the background to instigate hatred and trick people
into fighting with each other. We are fools to let them manipulate us into
wars and waste enormous amounts of our resources on the stockpiling of
weapons.

Soldiers have trouble killing people

The people who join the military are assumed to be violent,
and there are certainly some mentally ill people in the military who are
perpetually angry and frequently losing their temper, but most of people
in the military are just "ordinary" humans who have the same inhibitions
that the rest of us have. For example, in 1993, during the war in Bosnia,
a Croatian town of about 6500 people was attacked and invaded by the Bosnian
military, and most of the Croatians decided to abandon their town. In the
process, they also abandoned several hundred sick, crippled, and retarded
people at two of their hospitals. When United Nations troops
discovered
these abandoned people, they tried to take care of those that were still
alive, even though nobody wanted them.

Saving retarded people during a war is like saving a bag of garbage
while your house is on fire. Humans have such strong inhibitions about
death that we get ourselves into ridiculous situations, such as
bombing
a city, which kills lots of healthy people, and then struggling
to save some unwanted, retarded people. This behavior is idiotic!
It is something to expect from a stupid animal, not an intelligent
human. It is as irrational as worrying about abortions and euthanasia while
millions of people are suffering as a result of wars, crimes, kidnappings,
automobile accidents, and pollution.

We assume that the soldiers, especially of other nations, are violent
maniacs, but if any nation truly had a military of violent people, they
wouldn't waste any of their time or resources trying to save anybody, especially
not other people's retarded children. Instead, they would entertain
themselves by killing the retarded people. However, there has never
been a military that has treated the killing of people as a recreational
activity. There is not even a military that is capable of putting retards
out of their misery, or providing euthanasia for old people who are begging
for assisted suicide.

Every military goes out of its way to reduce
deaths. Wars are not nearly as destructive as they would be if we were
truly interested in killing one another. A military will fight only when
they believe that they are being attacked. As soon as their enemy surrenders,
the fighting will stop.

Before that mysterious website, judicial-inc.biz removed its
articles and switched to begging for pity and money, they had an article
about some US Marines who were being shot at in Iraq. The Americans had
a drone in the area, and they identified the location of the snipers, and
that allowed the Marines to capture those snipers. However, these snipers
turned out to be mercenaries or contractors of some type, not Iraqi soldiers.
Later those snipers were released, probably by Jews high up in the US military.
People assume that the Marines are violent, but if they truly enjoyed killing
people, why would they allow such deceptive saboteurs to be released and
possibly kill more military personnel?

This brings up an interesting issue. Specifically what will the police
and military do when they are finally pressured into identifying and arresting
the Jews and other criminals responsible for the 9/11 attack, setting up
American soldiers to be ambushed in Vietnam, and other crimes?

Will they risk their lives trying to capture the criminals alive?
Will they put the criminals in jail for a certain number of months
or years, and then release them back
into society? How many police and military personnel are capable of killing
criminals?

A lot of soldiers are willing to kill a person who is attacking
him, but once a criminal is arrested, most try to be sweet and adorable.
How many soldiers are capable of resisting
the apologies of the criminals and killing
them? And of the soldiers who can kill criminals, how many could kill them
in a simple and quick manner rather than going through an elaborate
execution procedure in which they worry about the criminals suffering a
few moments of pain? How many soldiers can kill criminals without needing
psychological treatment afterwards?

If humans truly had a desire to kill, we would
love to kill the
Jews and other criminals. And we would have no problem using the healthy
criminals as live organ donors. However,
when we finally get around to arresting the Jews and other criminals, we
are going to have to help people control their emotions so that
we can seriously discuss this issue of whether we want these criminals
alive, dead, or as organ donors.

Humans cannot deal with bad
behavior

If humans were violent creatures who enjoyed killing people,
then why don't we kill the people who ride skateboards or bicycles on public
sidewalks when they know they're not
supposed to? Why don't we kill the people who ruin our cities with graffiti
or "love locks"? Why don't we kill any of the people who allow their dog
to make noises and messes in our neighborhoods and cities?

We have trouble executing people who have been convicted
of murder and sentenced to death, so
how could we possibly kill children for spraying graffiti, or kill a person
who allows his dog to make a mess in the city? Humans are non-violent
creatures
who want to help people, and the end result is that we allow badly
behaved children and adults to irritate us year after year, decade after
decade. We are too nice for this modern
era. We are allowing ourselves to be abused, even by children.

We cannot criticize
leaders who are useless
or defective

King George VI of Britain (photo) never did or said anything
intelligent. Actually, he couldn't even say stupid things properly
because he had a stammering
problem. Some of the monarchs of Europe were even more defective
than King George VI. The American government is also full of people who
have nothing intelligent to say, and have all sorts of speech disorders,
mental disorders, alcohol problems, or criminal affiliations. If humans
were truly violent, hateful bullies, then we would enjoy killing all of
these freaks. However, humans have such incredibly strong inhibitions
about hurting people that we don't even want to complain about the
speech
problems of Congressmen
Barney Frank or Alan Grayson.
We don't even want to investigate the possibility that some of these government
officials are mentally defective.

Consider how this issue applies to the people in Russia or China. Why
should the people in Russia or China be afraid of the Americans when most
Americans are so nice that we worry
about hurting the feelings of people who have speech problems, or who look
like Neanderthals? Why should the people in any nation be afraid of us
when our own disgusting government officials, news reporters, and school
officials have no fear of us?

The mentally ill appear
to kill for pleasure, but it's just an illusion

Even the killings that appear to be random during a war are
not truly random. Some soldiers become very frustrated, angry, or irritated
with war, and sometimes they suffer from a lack of sleep or proper food.
This in turn can cause them to lose their temper more easily than when
they are feeling better, and when we lose our temper, we can kill. However,
these type of killings are not truly for pleasure. Rather, they are the
result of people who are so irritated that they lose their temper when
they normally wouldn't.

This same concept applies to the mentally ill lunatics who kill, such
as Jeffrey Dahmer. It appears as if these people are killing for pleasure,
but they are killing because they are suffering inside, and they are losing
their temper very easily. A normal person has to be irritated to a tremendous
amount before he loses his temper and is willing to kill, but if a person
is suffering from internal pains, it doesn't take as much to push him to
the point at which he loses his temper. We describe those type of people
as "irritable", but a better description
is "mentally defective", or "suffering from internal pains".

If a person with mental disorders could understand that he is suffering
from internal problems, then he might
look for ways of dealing with his problems. Unfortunately, America encourages
the attitude that if you are unhappy, it is due to something outside
of you, such as aristocrats, discrimination, sexism, or a lack
of money. America does not encourage
people to understand themselves and deal with their problems. America encourages
people to blame their problems on somebody else or some intangible concept.
As a result, mentally ill people are becoming angry at society, poverty,
aristocrats, or corporations. When these people lose their temper, they
attack what they assume is their enemy, such as society, or the corporations.

If men were truly sexist, feminism
wouldn't exist

The feminists claim that men are cruel, but the fact that men allow
the feminist movement is proof that the feminist philosophy is nonsense.

If men were truly as oppressive, cruel, and selfish as the feminists
claim, the feminist movement would have been suppressed as soon
as it was established.

“Daddy, how can I enjoy life
when men abuse women? I need to be liberated from sexism!”

“Yes, dear. Becoming a feminist should
make you as happy as a man. I am ashamed that men have abused women
for 6000 years.”

When people do something that has
never
been done before...

In one of my previous files I pointed out that whenever we
find a person accused of doing something that has never been done before,
we have to be suspicious. Consider how this concept applies to the Holocaust.
All throughout history we can see people making an effort to avoid killing
other people. You can see this in German history, also. Prior to World
War II, the Germans were just like everybody else. They had incredible
difficulty killing pigs and chickens, and they couldn't kill homeless people,
or even put old people out of their misery. The German students who were
studying to be doctors and nurses had to get accustomed to blood, hypodermic
needles, and dead bodies.

However, according to the Jews, after Hitler was elected, the German
population went through a magical transformation into a type of monster
that was capable of transporting millions of Jews and millions of other
people to death camps where they were casually executed. And then the millions
of dead bodies were casually put into incinerators and burned. And then,
after World War II was over, the magical influence of the Nazis vanished,
and the Germans returned to their previous condition of having extreme
difficulty with the killing of chickens, pigs, and old people. And the
Germans once again became squeamish of blood and hypodermic needles.

We could deduce that the Holocaust stories are Jewish propaganda simply
because the Jews expect us to believe that the German people behaved in
a manner that no humans had ever behaved before or after.

We feel guilty
that the Jews have suffered for 6000 years!

Humans are so generous and nice that when the Jews tell us
sad stories about how they have been suffering abuse from anti-Semites
for 6000 years, we feel guilty because we are related to the anti-Semites.
If humans were truly violent and hateful, we wouldn't care that the Jews
were abused. Furthermore, if there were anti-Semites for 6000 years, they
would still exist today, and the Jews would still be suffering. But there
are no anti-Semites today, and there never have been any. Instead, people
have been treating the Jews with generosity and kindness for thousands
of years. And in return, they exploit us. We are also exploited by the
defective people of our own race.

Thousands of years ago our extreme generosity was acceptable because
nature took care of the defects and retards, and the Jews were living in
their homeland. In this modern era, however, we have to keep our generosity
under control. We are hurting ourselves when we are generous to people
who don't appreciate our kindness,
or when we are generous to people who are destructive.

Who among us wants
war?

The "official" attitude is that every nation must maintain
an enormous military for defensive purposes because other nations may attack
us without warning, and without any sensible reason. We live in constant
fear of attack, and we assume that we are surrounded by enemies
rather than friends, but who are our
enemies? Who are we protecting ourselves from? What are the names
and addresses of the people in Russia and China who truly want to start
a war with America? And why do they
want to start a war with us?

How many people in France actually want to stop what they are doing
and attack Britain? Let's get their names and addresses and analyze who
those people are. Let's get a list of the names and addresses of the Americans
who want to attack Iran or Korea. And let's get a list of the names and
addresses of the people in Japan who want to start a war with Korea or
China.

If we were to identify and analyze the people who are pushing for war,
we would certainly find that those people are a small minority of the population,
and they are what we would describe as freaks, criminals, and lunatics.
They would not be people that we would describe as respectable or healthy.
Some of those freaks will be in leadership positions in the government,
media, schools, and businesses, but they are not "respectable" people.
There are no "normal" people who want
to stop what they are doing and start a war simply for entertainment.

It's important for the people in India, China, and other nations to
realize that most of the American people have no
desire to attack them. There are only a small number of people
in America who want war. Likewise, there are only a small number of people
in Russia and India who want violence. Therefore, instead of every nation
living in fear of one another, we should all be helping one another to
find the emotional strength to look within our nations, identify that small
minority of violent freaks, and deal with those troublemakers. We should
be dealing with the minority of people
who cause trouble, not living in fear of the majority of people.

The American people believe that we will protect ourselves from enemies
by building giant militaries, but our enemy is not
the nation of Russia or China, so our militaries are doing absolutely
nothing to protect us. We have nuclear bombs all around the
nation, but we have been under attack for decades by a network of
freaks who are "conquering" our government, media, schools, and businesses.
They are destroying the nation. Our nuclear bombs are doing nothing
to protect us from this violent hoard of freaks. Our aircraft carriers
are doing nothing to protect us.

Our enemy is not the Russian people or the Chinese people. It is a small
minority of violent freaks and selfish, crude savages. Many of them have
acquired
leadership positions in business,
the media, and the government. We should be identifying and dealing with
that minority of violent freaks instead of worrying about people in other
nations who have no desire to hurt us. We should be identifying and dealing
with the people who are pushing us into attacking Iran and North Korea,
and who are staging terrorist attacks, and who are trying to instigate
fights between men and women in different races and different political
parties.

Organized religions encourage war,
hatred, and arrogance

Humans are too arrogant for this modern world, but instead
of encouraging people to do a better job of controlling their arrogance,
the organized religions are encouraging their members to believe that they
are the only good people on the planet, and that everybody else's ignorant
or possessed by an evil force.

The religions are also causing trouble for us because they encourage
people to believe that intangible evil forces
occasionally get into people's minds. Humans have strong inhibitions
about killing
people, but we don't have any inhibitions about killing
intangible evil concepts that don't make sense, such as a "devil".
The devils don't bleed, and they don't scream or cry, and they cannot be
seen. We cannot have physical contact with a devil, and that means the
devils will never affect our emotions, and this in turn makes it very easy
for us to kill the devils.

The organized religions claim to be a wonderful influence on people,
but they don't encourage good behavior. They encourage arrogance, hatred,
and nonsensical concepts. They also manipulate people into giving them
money,
and they won't disclose the details of how much money they make, or where
exactly their money is going. There is also evidence that many church officials
are involved with pedophilia or other crimes, but their secrecy
prevents us from knowing exactly what is going on.

The religions don't encourage people to work with other people for the
benefit of all. Instead, they encourage the hatred of people who follow a
different religion. The religions also encourage blind obedience of leaders
rather than encouraging people to analyze their leaders and replace those
who are not doing a good job. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence that
the Christian religions have been infiltrated by criminal Jews (I
have a bit of information here),
so getting rid of the organized religions would be another step in protecting
ourselves from the disgusting influence of those criminal Jews.

The people who don't think very well, or who avoid thinking because
they don't enjoy it, can be manipulated by organized religions into becoming
arrogant jerks who want to help people "learn the truth" and become free
of the mysterious evil forces. If we were to eliminate organized religions
and insist that religion be a personal philosophy towards
life, the world would become slightly more peaceful.

Psychotic people tend to have psychotic
views of life

A lot of influential people are promoting the theory that humans
are inherently violent, and that world peace is impossible, but those people
are lying to us about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and other crimes,
so a lot of those people may be criminals.
Therefore, we should consider the possibility that one of the reasons they
promote dreary theories about humans is because they are looking at
themselves
and judging the entire human race according to what they see in their own
mind.

There are some people, such as Josef
Fritzl, (hiding his face in the photo), who may truly enjoy
torturing people. And consider how many people in leadership positions
of the government and the churches have been caught forcing children into
sex acts. And consider that there is supposedly a large market for sex
slaves, but who is purchasing them? Because sex slaves are expensive
"toys", their main customers may be the wealthy and influential members
of society.

If Fritzl, the pedophiles, and the customers of sex slaves were to assume
that they are typical humans, they could come up with a lot of dreary theories
about how the human race is hopelessly violent, selfish, and cruel, and
that there is no chance for world peace. And since many of these freaks
are in leadership positions of the media, government, schools, businesses,
think tanks, and other organizations, they can easily promote their distorted
philosophies.

When I'm upset, all sorts of violent and crazy thoughts wander through
my mind, but when I am in my "normal" condition, I don't see any craving
for violence. I don't see any craving for violence in other "normal" people,
either. Rather, I see people going out of their way to be nice to people,
even during a brutal war. All throughout history we can see people struggling
to help one another, and trying to avoid violence. Policemen are even nice
to criminals who are trying to kill them. My conclusion is that
world peace is entirely possible. All we have to do is get
the more crude, more violent creatures out of leadership positions,
and preferably out of society.

This concept of removing criminals from leadership positions might seem
sensible, but no nation actually wants to follow this policy. All nations
are following the policy that anybody can do anything he pleases, and
if a person misbehaves, we can cure him with
punishments.
We must change our policy and start looking for people who are higher quality
rather than trying to fix the badly behaved people. Consider how this concept
applies to guide dogs.

"Guide dogs" are born,
not created

The people who train dogs to help the blind, elderly, and disabled
don't
take dogs at random. Instead, they look for dogs that show evidence that
they have the appropriate intellectual and emotional qualities necessary
for the job, and then they put those dogs into a training program. The
dogs are observed throughout the training program, and they are removed
and rejected if they show signs that they don't have the necessary qualities.
The dogs that get through the training program are given jobs as guide
dogs, and if they ever misbehave while on the job, they are removed.

It's important to note that dogs that misbehave or lack the necessary
qualities are not sent to jail, or
made to take "time-outs", or beaten with a stick. They are simply rejected.
The people who train the guide dogs look for dogs that were born
with the necessary qualities; they don't try to transform a badly behaved
dog into a good dog.

The people who train guide dogs are following the philosophy that a
dog's mental qualities are genetic
rather than environmental. They do
not try to "create" guide dogs; rather, they test and train
the dogs that show the potential to be guide dogs.

Imagine creating "Guide
Dogs" the way we create "Guide
Humans"

The leaders of businesses, governments, schools, the media,
and other organizations could be described as "Guide Humans" because they
provide guidance to other people. We allow virtually anybody to
become an influential member of society, and when those "Guide Humans"
misbehave, we assume that we can fix their bad behavior by making their
organization pay a small fine, or by punishing them in some manner, such
as putting them in jail for a few months.

Imagine a company creating guide dogs in the same manner that we provide
ourselves with leadership. Imagine a company taking dogs at random,
putting them into a training program for guide dogs, and then letting
virtually all of them graduate. The dogs that misbehave are punished.
When a blind person purchases one of these guide dogs, he is told that
whenever his dog misbehaves, he should punish it in some manner, such as
by beating it with a stick, or putting it in a jail for a few days.

Probably every adult has the intelligence to realize that we cannot
create useful guide dogs by punishing the dogs that do a terrible job,
but that is the policy we are using right now to create "guide
humans".

"Guide
Humans" must also be born with leadership
qualities

The concepts that we use in training guide dogs could be -
and should be! - applied to human leadership. Actually, those concepts
apply to virtually all of the jobs that exist today, such as bricklayers,
athletes, singers, dentists, assembly-line workers, and engineers.

Specifically, when we want to find somebody to do a particular job,
we should look for some people who show that they have the necessary physical,
intellectual, and emotional qualities, and then we put those people
through a testing and training program. We observe their performance and
remove
them if they show signs that they don't have the necessary qualities. After
they get through their training program and have been given a job, we occasionally
analyze
their performance to ensure that they are doing their jobs properly, and
if they do not, they are removed.

When somebody doesn't perform properly at their job, we should treat
him the same way we would treat a guide dog that isn't performing properly.
Specifically, we should remove him from that job and let him try some other
job. We should not try to fix him with jail, punishments, "time-outs",
or psychological counseling.

It is especially important to apply this concept to people in leadership
positions because our leaders are much more critical to society than a
sales clerk or a waitress. We should try to find people who were born
with the necessary qualities to be a good leader, and who behave properly
because they want to. When they misbehave,
they should be removed. We should not try to fix them by making
their corporation pay a fine, or by putting them in jail.

Unfortunately, all societies today are following the opposite philosophy;
namely, that the human mind is whatever the environment makes it to be.
Every society is following the philosophy that anybody can do any job that
he pleases, and that if somebody commits a crime, we can transform him
into a better person with rewards and punishments. There are some people
who even promote the idea that homosexuality is an option that is
available to all of us, or that homosexuality is due to the manner in which
parents raise their boys.

Defective people could become a
race of freaks

Eventually the human race will face the obvious fact that humans
follow the same rules of life as the
animals and plants. There are subtle differences between people in regards
to their physical and mental qualities, and we cannot transform a person's
mental qualities through rewards or punishments, and we cannot give a person
a talent that he wasn't born with. We must also face the fact that people
who are destructive to society must be removed. They cannot be transformed
into better people.

Although everybody occasionally loses his temper, the only people who
are perpetually angry, dishonest, parasitic, and violent are those who
are suffering from mental or physical disorders. Although some people appear
to be more closely related to primitive savages, not even the primitive
savages were inherently violent. It's more accurate to describe the violence,
rapes, tortures, sex slavery, and other crimes as coming from a small number
of mentally defective people.

Unfortunately, we are foolishly allowing these defective people to form
crime networks, and this is allowing them to make enormous amounts of money,
and this in turn is allowing them to get control of businesses, our media,
our government officials, and other organizations. Their money is also
allowing them to attract a spouse and raise a lot of children. If we don't
do something to stop them, we will end up with a race
of criminals, assuming we don't already have such a race.

We are so
nice that we assist with our abuse

Humans are not violent;
rather, we are too nice. We have such
a problem killing people that we won't even kill the horrible crime networks
that are killing us. We are so nice
that we are allowing ourselves to be abused. The situation could be described
as a paradox because if we were more
violent towards the criminals, we would end up with less crime and
violence, and more peace.

The world will improve as soon as
we put better people
in control

We don't need gigantic militaries to protect ourselves from
other nations. Instead, the entire world needs to analyze all of the people
and pass judgment on who among us is a contributing member, and
who is destructive or parasitic. That minority of people is the
only problem the world is facing. We don't have to live in fear of the
healthy people.

World peace is possible. All we
have to do is start putting higher quality people in control of businesses,
schools, the media, the government, and other organizations. It is difficult
to pass judgment on a person's mental health and leadership abilities,
but as soon as we start the process, we will slowly learn how to do an
increasingly better job of analyzing people. There is nothing to fear.
We are not going to hurt ourselves!

We must learn to control our stupid emotions
so that we can face the criminals and remove
them. This will be difficult, but once we start the process,
the number of criminals will diminish, and that makes the problem easier
and easier. The problem we face right now is analogous to cleaning up a
garden that we foolishly allowed to become overgrown with weeds. The job
appears to be overwhelming, but as soon as we start removing the weeds,
the job becomes easier and easier, and when all of the weeds are finally
gone, it will be easy for us to maintain the garden. So, instead of worrying
about how big the job is, look forward to this opportunity to transform
this planet into a beautiful human garden.

How much "better"
behaved are humans?

We are better behaved than animals,
but by how much?

There are tremendous intellectual
differences between the animals and humans, but what is the
emotional
difference between us? If we could measure the mental
differences between humans and animals, what exactly
would we find? Just
how superior are
our emotions?

In this section I will show a lot of evidence that we are vastly superior
in intelligence, but not so superior in emotional qualities.
For example, if it were possible to measure the level of evolution that
a creature has been through, we might find that our intelligence is so
superior to that of the animals that a chimpanzee would need 2 million
years of evolution to reach the level of a human, and a dog would need
50 million years. However, we might find that the emotional differences
between us are so much smaller that a chimpanzee would need only 40,000
years of evolution to reach the emotional advancement of a human, and a
dog might need only 300,000 years of evolution.

It's important to realize that I'm not discussing this issue in order
to encourage pouting. Rather, I think we need an understanding of human
emotions in order to understand how the world came to be the way it is,
and how we can deal with our problems, and how we can design a society
that is better suited to us. One way to understand our emotions is to compare
ourselves to animals and try to determine what the difference is between
an animal mind and a human mind.

Imagine animals with the same
level of intelligence as humans

In this section, try to imagine if it were possible to turn
a knob and increase the intelligence of animals to the level of the human.
Once our intelligence has been equalized, the only difference between us
- aside from physical differences, which I'm going to ignore - would be
emotional
differences. What would those emotional differences be? Would humans
have better table manners? Would we be more honest? Would we be better
able to work in teams? Would we find that the best
behaved animals are almost identical to the worst
behaved humans?

Of course, it is impossible to answer any of these questions, but thinking
about these imaginary scenarios can help you to understand your mind and
your emotions. You might also find it entertaining!

How would animals deal with extreme
weather?

There were a lot of storms in America at the end of December
2010. A lot of cities once again suffered from rain, snow, and ice.
It's important to note that every time there is a large storm somewhere
in the world, people make the same stupid remarks over and over, such as
this
New York Times article with the title, "Outrage at
Unplowed Streets? It’s a New York Tradition", in which they point
out that every few years there is a big storm in the city and the people
whine about the snow on the streets. If this pattern continues, there will
be another big storm in the future, and the people will whine again, and
then years later there will be another storm, and the people will whine
again, and so on, century after century.
When are we going to prepare for these
storms?

That storm was described as the "sixth largest
snowstorm in the history of New York City". Most people reacted
as if this is some type of a shocking event. Most people don't seem
to fully understand that it's possible to have the fifth-largest
snowstorm, or even the second-largest, and it's also possible to
have the largest of the past 500 years.
It is also possible to have the largest storm in 10,000 years, or the largest
storm in 50,000 years. What would the people in New York City do if they
experienced the largest snowstorm in the past 10 million years?

Furthermore, there were accusations
that some of the city workers were sabotaging
the cleanup of the snow. I can understand why people are angry with government
officials, but we
don't improve our
situation by having temper tantrums. We should have serious discussions
about creating a better government, and we should be experimenting
with improvements. How often are people sabotaging the efforts to clean
up from a storm? Is this typical behavior?

Now consider how animals would react to winter storms if they
had the same intelligence as humans. The only difference between us would
be emotional. If human emotions are truly more advanced than animal
emotions, that implies that animals would have an even more idiotic reaction
to winter storms. Perhaps the animals would have evenless
concern about preparing for storms, and their government would be more
corrupt, selfish, lazy and inefficient, and they would sabotage the cleanup
efforts more often!

A few people realize that the large storms will occur again in the future,
but no society is bothering to design cities to deal with the extreme weather
conditions. Instead, they design cities for "typical" weather, so every
time the weather is extreme, the people suffer and a lot of material items
are destroyed. There were floods
and mudslides in California at the end of December 2010, but most people
have no desire to design their cities
to handle large rainstorms. Instead, most people react to the floods by
crying, praying to God, or hoping that there is never again another large
storm.

Now consider how intelligent animals would react to a flood. If human
emotions are superior, then that means the animals would react to floods
in an even more irrational manner, but what could be worse than the idiotic
reaction of most people?

I suppose we could accuse animals of being worse than humans if they
enjoyed
a flooded city by rushing out into the water to play.

We don't design our transportation
devices to handle extreme snow or ice storms, either, and as a result,
during every winter there are significant delays and accidents with airplanes,
trains, and automobiles. Rather than do something to improve the
situation, most people just
hope that they don't become a victim,
and they titillate themselves with other people's accidents. Here
is a video of cars sliding down a hill in Colorado and crashing into one
another. If humans are better behaved than animals, then would intelligent
animals have even less concern about icy roads and automobile accidents?

I suppose we could accuse animals of being worse than humans if they
ignored
their injuries, and played
in the snow with no concern that they
might bleed to death.

Incidentally, my guess is that we are fascinated with automobile
accidents for the same reason that we are fascinated by dead bodies, blood,
and injuries. Specifically, we don't truly "enjoy" it. Rather,
our emotions are stimulated by death and injuries as a way of making us
aware of potential danger. We may also enjoy looking at accidents because
it makes us realize that we are still
alive. We usually don't appreciate something until we lose it, or watch
somebody else lose it. As a result, looking at somebody who is dying from
an automobile accident can make us slightly more appreciative of life,
at least for a few moments.

We should take
control of our holidays

Before Christianity, many or most Europeans would have celebrations
in the middle of winter. The Catholic Church manipulated the winter celebration
into Christmas, and later businesses began exploiting Christmas.
Today Christmas is a very significant business and religious event, and
people do a lot of traveling during this holiday. However, the middle of
winter is not a good time for travel. Even if we developed better
transportation systems, and even if we protected power lines and water
pipes from winter storms, it would make more sense to encourage travel
during other seasons.

We should design social affairs, and clothing, to fit
the climate. The summer, for example, is a good time to arrange
for water related activities, such as swimming, boating, or scuba
diving, and for activities in which we want many hours of sunlight. The
spring and autumn are wonderful times to get together to enjoy nature by
taking walks, riding bicycles, or having picnics. The middle of winter
is best suited for local social affairs.

Unfortunately, the men who dominate society don't even want to design
their clothing to fit the climate, so it's not surprising that they have
no interest in designing social affairs that fit the climate. Instead,
people are encouraged to travel in the middle of the winter, and on transportation
devices that were never designed for large storms. As a result, every year
thousands of people are stranded at airports, train stations, and in automobiles.
And this goes on year after year, decade after decade. Not many people
care. Would intelligent animals care more than us?

Humans foolishly ignore the possibility that there will be another
storm next year.

I suppose we could say animals are worse than us if they enjoyed
being stranded at the airport.

Storms are "beautiful",
not "bad"

If we designed cities properly, we would be able to enjoy
the amazing variety of weather
on this beautiful planet.

The people on television frequently describe weather as bad,
or miserable, and some of them describe fog as a "fog monster".
However, weather is not good or bad; rather, it's a feature
of the planet Earth. Whether you enjoy the weather depends upon your personality,
and how you must interact with it. For example, in our cities of
today,
fog, rain, and ice cause a lot of suffering, but we are fools to blame
the weather for auto accidents, or
delays with airlines and trains. Those problems are the result of our own
crude
behavior. We all realize that fog, rain, and ice are going to
occur on a regular basis, so we should
design cities and transportation devices to deal with these routine
weather events. It is our own fault
that we suffer from the weather. We cannot blame the weather. We will be
able to enjoy the weather as soon as we stop behaving like stupid
animals.

When an animal slips on ice, it picks itself up, licks its wounds, and
continues. When it slips again, it picks itself up, licks its wounds, and
continues. Animals don't anticipate or prepare for problems. They also
don't notice, appreciate, or enjoy the beauty of the earth. Animals
merely exist. Most humans seem to be
merely existing, also.

This modern world needs a more advanced human who is interested in
taking
control of his life, future, and culture. If we were to design
cities and transportation devices for extreme weather, then we would be
able to enjoy the rain, the lightning,
the clouds, the fog, and even the ice storms. The storms are beautiful
and fascinating events on this planet.
We are denying ourselves the opportunity
to enjoy them. If we were to design cities better, we would be able to
watch the lightning, the hail, and the snow from the comfort of a beautiful
and safe city.

Would intelligent animals
trample
each other?

Some humans line up for hours or days
in front of retail stores waiting for them to open their doors. Humans
occasionally trample on one another at sports events, and when the doors
open
to retail stores, and sometimes
they kill a person in the process.

If human emotions are superior to animal emotions, then how would animals
behave if they had the same intelligence as humans? Would the animals line
up in front of retail stores more often than we do? Would their
lines be longer than ours? Would they trample and kill one another
more often than we do?

Would some animals be more likely
to mimic one
another?

Humans have a tendency to mimic one another, as you can see
by our clothing and hair styles. What would intelligent animals be like?
I suspect that different species of animals would have subtle variations
in their desire to mimic one another. Some animals, perhaps sheep, would
have a very strong craving to "follow the crowd", whereas other animals,
perhaps the cats, would be more independent.

The animal species that have the greatest craving to follow one another
would be the easiest for businesses to manipulate. The sheep, for example,
might be so easily manipulated into
believing that "Diamonds are a Sheep's Best Friend" that every
sheep, both male and female, might purchase diamonds. It's possible that
businesses would even be able to convince the male
sheep to wear high heel shoes and makeup, and they might sell "wool care"
products to sheep to both straighten and curl their hair. Other animal
species, by comparison, might be so independent that advertisements have
almost no effect over them.

Would some animal species be more
religious?

Religious people claim that the reason they are religious is
because they have been "educated" to the "truth", and that
they are capable of thinking properly. However, I think our emotions
are attracted to religion, not our intellect. Our emotions are attracted
to the idea that God loves us and will
take care of us. I think that women have a stronger attraction to religion
than men because they have a stronger craving to follow an older, male
leader. People who commit crimes are attracted to the concept that God
will forgive them for their disgusting behavior.

Since the attraction to religion is emotional rather than intellectual,
I suspect that the animals who have a greater emotional craving to follow
a leader would have a greater attraction to religion than humans, and the
animals that are more independent would have less of an interest.

Would intelligent animals have higher
crime rates?

Humans are committing a variety of crimes every day, and in every nation.
The photo shows a prisoner having his tattoos removed. He said that he
would steal anything he pleased:

Prisoner: I was always the type of person that,
if I see something that I like, I go get it.Interviewer. You beat them up?Prisoner: I beat them up. Interviewer. You shot them?Prisoner: Shot them. Even killed.Interviewer: You've killed people? Prisoner: Yeah.That prisoner was interviewed for this
report about gang members in the US military (Part 2 here
shows security video of one of the gang members killing a policeman). Although
Russia
Today is a Jewish propaganda group, the US Military does
have crime gang members within it, although Russia Today won't mention
that most of them are Jewish
criminals. The Jews try to fool us into believing that only Mexicans,
Africans, and other races form gangs.

All human children grab at whatever they please, but as we
get older, we learn to control ourselves. However, some of us are better
able to control our emotions. Now consider that if humans are emotionally
superior
to the animals, then the animals would be even more arrogant, selfish,
and abusive. The animals would have even more
trouble controlling their cravings for food, sex, status, and whatever
else they are attracted to. Therefore, crime would be at an even higher
level with animals!

Animals are extremely arrogant. They don't consider themselves as a
"gear in a machine", or a "member of society". They consider themselves
to be the owner of the world, and they take whatever attracts their
attention. If we were to raise the intelligence of an animal to the level
of the human, they would be able to understand the concept
of personal property, but would they be able to control their emotional
cravings? Or would they be so extremely arrogant and selfish that they
continue to behave as if they own the world? Would an intelligent dog be
able to resist his craving to take food from your dinner plate? Or would
he use his intelligence to figure out more clever methods of getting your
food?

I suspect that the animals would be even more
involved with crime than the prisoner in the photo. It's possible that
every
animal would be routinely stealing,
killing, raping, deceiving, and manipulating both humans and animals. Humans
would react by arresting the animals and putting them in jail in order
to cure them of their bad behavior, and the end result would be that our
jails would be dominated by intelligent
animals.

It's also interesting to consider the possibility that most of the animals
would be in jail rather than out
of jail. Also, consider how many humans spend their entire
lives going in and out of jail. I think an even greater percentage of intelligent
animals would spend their lives in this manner. It's possible that the
majority
of animals, possibly all of them, would
be regularly going in and out of jail. It's possible that
no animal
would be able to even get through one week without stealing something,
raping somebody, or getting into a fight.

Would some animals have more
of a problem with their temper?

Some animals, such as deer, are passive, so if deer were given
the same intelligence as humans, they might be shy, introverted, and peaceful.
They might hide from everything that bothered them. At the other extreme,
wolves, hyenas, and dogs are aggressive and violent, so if they had the
same intelligence as a human, they might be very dangerous when they become
upset and lose their temper. Also, they might lose their temper over what
we humans would consider to be meaningless
incidents. For example, a dog might become angry at us because we didn't
follow some silly social protocol properly, and they regarded it as an
insult.

Dogs are routinely attacking people and animals simply for
coming near their territory. However, the dogs are not attacking us because
they are stupid. Rather, the dogs have an
emotional craving to defend their territory rather than hide.
If all we did was to increase their intelligence to that of a human, then
they would retain their emotional craving to attack people who entered
their territory. Would intelligent dogs be better able to control their
temper than we humans can control our temper? Possibly, but I suspect that
humans are better at controlling our emotions.

We like to think of dogs as being adorable creatures, but if they had
our intelligence while retaining their crude emotions, I think they would
be extremely dangerous. When they lost their temper, they would be able
to do a lot more than bark and bite; they would be able to use fire, guns,
knives, and other technology.

Would animals enjoy toilet
humor more than us?

When I was working with Daryl Smith, he told me that his favorite
jokes were "fart jokes". In his phone call to me on 2_Nov
2010, Smith's primary reason for calling was to talk about the "liquid
fart" issue. It's important to realize that I've written dozens of documents
and have dozens of audio files and videos, but I have only a few paragraphs
about the issue of liquid farts (here).
However, even though that topic is an incredibly insignificant
issue on my website, Smith focused on it.

Smith also insisted that I discussed the issue in one of my audio files,
but the only time I talk about it is when crude people, such as Smith,
bring it up. For example, Peggy Borger mentioned that issue in her
phone call to me on 26_Dec
2010, although she didn't talk it during that conversation, and some of
the other freaks who called me on the phone spent a lot of time
talking about the the issue. Why is it that the freaks who are constantly
trying to manipulate me have a fascination with the issue of farts? And
keep in mind that they don't discuss the issues in a serious
manner; they merely make idiotic remarks, like a child.

I don't think it is a coincidence that criminals have a childish fascination
with toilet humor. As I pointed out in other files, I don't believe the
theory that criminals are "ordinary" people who are suffering from poverty,
discrimination, bad parenting, or the devil. I think some criminals are
genetically defective, and some inherited
primitive
characteristics.

The crude behavior of criminals makes me suspect that if animals were
given the same intelligence as humans, they would be even more crude
than Daryl Smith, Peggy Borger, and the other weirdos that bother me. I
think that if animals were more intelligent, they would have an even greater
attraction to toilet humor because their emotions would be much more crude
than the emotions of the most crude human. Cats, for example, clean themselves by licking
themselves, and if we were to increase their intelligence while leaving
their emotions alone, they would continue to have a craving to lick themselves.
Dogs like to smell everybody's crotch, and giving them more intelligence
wouldn't change that emotional craving.

People like to imagine that animals are wonderful creatures, but they
are just biological robots designed for reproduction. If we were to increase
their intelligence to that of a human, they would not
resemble humans. They would be incredibly crude, lewd, rude, and disgusting.

Would animals have more "pride"
?

Animal are suspicious of one another. They regard other animals
as potential enemies, not as potential friends. Humans also regard the
people in other groups as being potentially dangerous. When nations behave
this way, we refer to it as "national pride".
This emotion is so crude that it is activated whenever we are part of an
organization, regardless of the size or type of organization. For example,
this emotion causes us to be proud of the particular city, college, race,
political group, religion, corporation, or sports team that we are a member
of.

If people can keep this emotion under control, then it can be used to
inspire beneficial competition between groups, but some people get carried
away believing that their group is truly superior to the others. For example,
when I was in high school, some of the football players of a nearby school
pulled up some newly planted trees at our high school in order to intimidate
us and show us how much superior they were to us.

I think that as animals evolved into humans, this particular
emotion (or perhaps it's a set of emotions), diminished somewhat, and that
allowed humans to be less suspicious of one another and more capable of
forming friendships. However, a lot of humans have a problem controlling
this particular emotion, and the Jews are making the problem worse by encouraging
national pride. The Jews don't want the different nations to cooperate.
They encourage us to wave flags, be proud of our nation, and behave like
arrogant jerks who live in fear and suspicion of other nations. They want
us to fight with other nations, not form friendships with
them.

The Jews also encourage pride among different races, religions, and
political groups. For example, all of the organizations that promote the
concept of "white pride" seem to be
secretly under the control of Jews. The Jews are also encouraging pride
among the women in order to encourage fights between men and women.
It's important to be aware of this desire to be proud of your group so
that you can keep it under control and not let Jews or con artists manipulate
you into becoming an arrogant jerk who fights with other groups.

If animals had the same intelligence as humans, I suspect that animals
would have a much stronger craving to be proud of their group. Their "national
pride" would be much stronger than it is with humans, and their "racial
pride" (eg, "Chihuahua Pride" and "Baboon Pride") would be much stronger,
also. Animals might be much more interested in waiving flags, boasting
about the superiority of their group, and insulting the other groups. This
in turn would make it more difficult for the groups of animals to form
friendships and cooperate with one another. Furthermore, it
would be easier for the Jews to instigate fights between the different
groups of animals.

Would misfit
animals be more likely to pout
or get angry?

There are a lot of people who have trouble forming stable friendships
or marriages, or who have trouble getting jobs, or who are mistreated by
retail store clerks. Many of these people claim that the reason they are
being mistreated is because some of us are anti-Semitic, racist, sexist,
homophobic, bullies, or bigoted.

Some of the people who make these accusations are simply trying to
cover up their crimes, such as when a Jew complains that we are anti-Semitic
when we accuse him of helping to cover up the 9/11 attack. However, some
people truly believe that the reason we don't like them, or the reason
they did not get a job, is because we don't like fat people, or we don't
like their particular race, or because we are homophobic.

These people simply refuse to admit to, or be responsible for, their
disgusting behavior and the problems they experience in life. They prefer
to believe that some of us have an inherent hatred of an entire group of
people based on some characteristic, such as religion or race.

It is certainly true that humans have a natural dislike of homosexuals,
and we have a natural preference to segregate according to our race, but
the primary factor determining how well a person fits into society is his
personality;
his behavior. People who are honest,
reliable, and responsible will be treated much better than other people,
even if they are homosexual, black, female, Jewish, ugly, and fat.

If humans are emotionally superior to animals, then how would intelligent
animals react when they experienced problems with friendship
or jobs? Would some species of animals be more likely to
pout, and
others more likely to become angry?

“You are anti-monkey!
That's why you would not hire me for that job! That is why you gave the
job to a human! We need hate-crime laws to stop this discrimination.”

Would animals leave "less to the
imagination"?

When I was a child, the television shows and movies didn't
show details about what people were doing inside bathrooms or bedrooms,
and they didn't show people being murdered. For example, in the Alfred
Hitchcock movie, Psycho, we didn't actually see the woman being
stabbed. And we didn't see her naked body, either. During the following
decades, television and movies began showing more details. Some people
describe what is happening as "the movies are leaving less to the imagination".
If the Psycho movie were created today, they might show the woman
in the shower naked, and then they might show the gory details of her being
stabbed with a knife.

I don't think the audience benefits by watching two people
making love, or by watching somebody on a toilet or in a shower. Furthermore,
we don't need long, detailed, murder scenes. So why are the movie
producers putting these type of scenes into so many movies and television
shows? Are they trying to create more realistic movies? Or are they
adding these silly scenes simply because they don't have anything more
intelligent to put into the movie and are trying to occupy some time?

My explanation for these scenes is that Hollywood is being taken over
by crude people who enjoy
toilet humor and high levels of violence and sexual stimulation. Furthermore,
I think that one of the reasons they want detailed sex scenes is because
it gives the Jews a chance to kiss and fondle the actresses that
they normally would never be allowed to touch.

I think that if animals were as
intelligent as humans, they would want even more
details, and I think that animals would put more sex scenes into their
movies so that they had more opportunities to touch and kiss the actresses.

Would animals have more extreme
displays of status?

Every organization is a hierarchy, and the people at the lower
levels are expected to be submissive to people above them. When a person
is promoted in the hierarchy or rewarded for his achievements, there is
usually some type of ceremony. At one extreme, a person might get a simple,
verbal compliment, and at the other extreme, there may be a large party
or elaborate ceremony.

Every organization developed slightly different rules for behavior and
slightly different ceremonies. The monarchies
of Europe and the British courts have
some of the most elaborate ceremonies, although the ceremonies have become
simpler through the centuries. For example, until recently, it was common
for the judges and lawyers of a British court to wear wigs. I suspect that
the intelligent animals would want even more elaborate displays of submission
and more elaborate ceremonies than the monarchies of the Middle Ages.

I also suspect that the reason the courts and monarchies of today are
still among the most extreme in regards to displays of submission is because
they are dominated by people who are more crude than the rest of us. The
judge of a court, for example, is treated like a king and sits in that
chair that is higher than everybody else, and until recently, the lawyers
and judges in Britain were wearing
wigs. I don't think this is coincidence. I think the people who dominate
our courts and monarchies are more crude than the rest of us. The monarchies
are the most extreme. The Kings and Queens don't contribute anything to
society, but they expect us to provide them with displays of submission,
enormous quantities of material items, and constant pampering.

I criticized judges and lawyers years ago (Part
4 of my Dumbing Down series), so I won't repeat myself, but
I will remind you that if any of the lawyers or judges were as intelligent
as they claim to be, we would see evidence of their intelligence, but in
reality, all we see them doing is covering up crimes and exploiting the
fights between people.

What would a legal system be like if it was dominated by intelligent
animals? Since human lawyers and judges exploit the courts to cover up
crimes and profit from fights, I think the intelligent animals would be
even more abusive. They would bring new meaning to the expression, "Kangaroo
court".

Remember: judge an organization
by its effect

An organization is whatever the people make it. If an organization
consists of intelligent, honest people, then they will create a sensible
organization, and their policies will be based on intelligent reasoning.
Our courts, by comparison, have idiotic procedures that don't make sense,
and the courts are doing nothing to help us understand or reduce crime.
Actually, our courts are covering up the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust
lies, and lots of other crimes! This is an indication that the type of
people who dominate the court system are criminals and crude
people. They created a court system that has silly displays of submission
and dominance because they enjoy those displays, not because they
did a serious analysis of human behavior and came to the conclusion that
this type of court system is more effective than other types of court systems.

Some people justify the behavior of people in our courts as being necessary
to "show authority", but what does that mean? There is no intelligent reasoning
to support the behavior of the people in the courts, or any of the procedures
that they follow. Our courts are similar to organized religions and monarchies
because all of these groups have silly and unexplainable displays of submission
and dominance, and none of them actually contribute something of value
to society. Rather, they all cover up lots of crimes.

Remember to judge people and organizations according to their effect
on society. Don't judge them by what they say about themselves. Take a
serious look at these groups of people and ask yourself,

"What are these courts doing to reduce crime or improve
society? What are the monarchies doing in return for all of the food, electricity,
and other resources that they consume? What are the organized religions
doing to improve the world? Why are we wasting
resources on these people? What are they doing for us?"

Would intelligent animals select
the largest apples?

Humans and animals are titillated by food, and the larger quantities
will titillate us more than the smaller quantities. Since children don't
think very well, it is easiest to understand this concept by watching children.
When children are hungry and are provided with a variety of different sizes
of apples, bananas, and other fruit, they have a tendency to select the
fruit that is the largest, even if it's more than they can eat.

What would intelligent animals be like when selecting fruit at a market?
Would they be better able to control their emotions? Or would they have
a tendency to pick the largest fruit,
even if it was larger than they could eat?

How would animals treat people who
are submissive
to them?

On the television show V,
the queen of the aliens controls people below her with murder, torture,
and threats. The people below her are so submissive that she can kill and
torture them in front of one another during meetings.
Hollywood also depicts some of the top leaders of crime networks as killing
and hurting people below them in the hierarchy while they are having a
meeting.
There are accusations that Joseph Stalin and other communist leaders would
routinely kill people below them in the hierarchy, although they may not
have done so during a meeting. I suppose the Kings and Queens of the Middle
Ages were also sometimes behaving like Joseph Stalin, or like members of
crime networks.

Why do the Hollywood Jews have a tendency to depict the leaders of aliens
and crime networks as getting their positions of leadership through murder,
nepotism, inheritance, treachery, blackmail, threats, and intimidation?
And why do the Hollywood Jews show those leaders maintaining their position
of authority with shocking displays of violence and torture? Why don't
the Jews ever show people earning their
position as a result of talent or intelligence? Furthermore, why do the
Hollywood Jews depict the lower-level aliens and criminals as being extremely
submissive towards their leadership? Why don't the Jews ever show people
at lower levels in the hierarchy as having intelligence, or analyzing the
performance of their leaders and passing judgment on which of them should
be replaced?

I think the Hollywood Jews are inadvertently showing us their personalities.
I think that the Hollywood Jews, if they had their way, would rule over
us with violence, and they would deal with criticism and competitors with
violence. In fact, this seems to be going on with the Israeli government
and the Jewish crime network in general. The Jews seem to murder, threaten,
and intimidate one another on a regular basis, just like the aliens on
the Jewish television shows and movies.

Take a look at human leaders. Some of them, such as Joseph Stalin, surround
themselves with submissive servants. They don't want anybody talented in
the hierarchy because they don't want any competition. Men like Joseph
Stalin do not create a talented "team". Rather, they create something more
similar to a medieval monarchy, or the type of hierarchy that we see in
a crime network or the television show V.

If humans emotions are superior to animal emotions, how much worse would
the animals behave? If a dog was elected president of America, or if a
dog became a corporate leader, would he surround himself with even more
submissive people who followed his orders in an even more mindless manner?
Would an intelligent dog react to criticism and competitors with even more
violence, threats, and intimidation?

Or would animals be better behaved than us? Or would an intelligent
dog want to earn his position as leadership? Would he want to surround
himself with other talented people so that he could create an impressive
team? Would he try to impress us with his talent and intelligence rather
than intimidate us with displays of violence and threats?

Comparing humans to animals can
help us understand ourselves

I'm not comparing humans to intelligent animals to encourage
pouting. As I pointed out in Part
4 of my Dumbing Down series, the only way we can learn about something
is by comparing it to something else
and looking for similarities and differences. Comparing ourselves to animals
can help us understand both humans and animals.

Our technology and our
capability of language creates the
illusion that we are incredibly superior to
the animals, but those are intellectual
qualities. How much better are we in our emotional
qualities? If animals had the exact
same intelligence as us, then what would be the difference in
our behavior? And how would different species of animals be different from
us? Would rabbits and deer seem timid, introverted, or shy compared to
dogs, bears, and hyenas? Would some species of animals be more prone to
crime, corruption, parasitic behavior, gambling, drugs, prostitution, sex
slavery, or alcohol? Would some species of monkeys be so similar to us
that the worst behaved humans and the best behaved monkeys
can get along as friends or spouses?

The "typical" human has almost no interest
in history, his culture, or the incredible options we have for our future.
Most people also care so little about society that they refuse
to listen to or discuss the lies about the 9/11 attack and the Holocaust.
Most people will occasionally complain about corruption
and crime, but they won't do anything
to stop it. Only a small number of people are actually willing to help
expose or remove the criminals from our media, government, legal system,
schools, and businesses. How could an animal behave worse
than that? What would be worse than hiding
from the lies about the Apollo moon landing, or the Holocaust? How can
we boast about our superiority when most people don't care that
they are being abused by crime networks? How is the typical human
"superior" to a pet dog that allows itself to be beaten?

Humans are obviously more emotionally advanced than animals because
we are capable of forming teams, working together, and follow rules of
behavior. We can also form relationships with people outside of our own
society. However, the point I'm trying to make is that our emotional advancement
is trivial compared to our intellectual advancement. Or to
put it another way, we are still very similar to animals in emotional
qualities and behavior. Therefore, if we were to give animals the same
level of intelligence that we have, we might discover that we are not that
much more superior to them.

Intelligent animals would be
monsters

We would not
want animals to be intelligent!

Although we can't be sure exactly how an intelligent animal
would behave, as I tried to point out in the section above, and in
such documents as this and this,
increasing the intelligence of an animal would not
make it behave like a human. Actually,
I think that if all we did was to increase the intelligence
of an animal while leaving its emotions alone, we would create a
monster.
For example, if we could give some rats
the intelligence of a human, they would continue to want to live just like
rats, but their greater intelligence would make it much easier for them
to find food, escape from predators, and build nests. They would have a
much easier time stealing food from us and avoiding our traps and poisons.
They would even be capable of killing us and using us as
food.

Furthermore, those intelligent rats would eventually figure out our
language, and that would enable them to understand what we are saying
about them. They would not be able to speak to us because of their crude
vocal cords and mouth, but they might eventually figure out how to read
our written language, and they might also figure out how to turn on our
computers, read our e-mail messages, and send messages to us. They would
be extremely dangerous creatures.

It's also important to realize that we would never
be friends with an intelligent rat. Even if we were capable
of communicating with each other, they would want to live the lifestyle
of a rat, not a human. They would not be interested in our manners or our
laws. They would want to live, eat, and sleep like a rat. And imagine if
a spider had the intelligence of a
human. Or how about a flea or mosquito?

A lot of people consider dogs to
be adorable creatures, but if they were as intelligent as humans while
retaining the same emotional qualities, they would become monsters,
also. They would continue to behave just like a stupid dog, except that
their greater intelligence would make it easier for them to figure out
how to get food from the kitchen, and they would also learn how to be better
at manipulating us with displays of "cuteness". Furthermore, consider how
often dogs become angry at people and animals that come near their
territory. If dogs retained the same emotional cravings to protect
their territory, their greater intelligence would allow them
to do more than bark and bite us. Intelligent dogs would be extremely dangerous
because they would be able to figure out how to use guns, knives, fire,
and other technology.

Imagine if humans and gorillas could
interbreed

Now imagine a less extreme example. Imagine if humans and gorillas
were genetically similar enough so that we could interbreed. Imagine
women being raped by gorillas, and some men getting female gorillas pregnant.
This interbreeding would create a variety of creatures that are neither
human nor gorilla. They would be physically stronger than humans, but not
as intelligent. They would be able to understand our language, but their
mouth and vocal cords would make it impossible for them to pronounce some
of our words properly.

They would be too intelligent to fit into a gorilla society, but they
would not fit into human society very well, either, because they would
consider our laws and manners to be a restriction of their freedom.
I don't think it would be easy for them to be an employee because
I don't think they would want to work in teams or follow orders. I think
they would be too independent.

If we were to feel sorry for the human/gorilla mixtures and give them
jobs, I think they would spend most of their time trying to avoid
work. I think they would do the bare minimum necessary to collect a paycheck.

I think they would be primarily interested in pornography, food, and
fighting for dominance.

The second
generation would be more like humans

The first generation from the interbreeding of humans with gorillas
would be a creature that is about halfway between a human and a gorilla.
If those creatures reproduced with humans, the second generation would
be more similar to a human. If that second generation reproduced with humans,
then the third generation would be even more similar to humans. Eventually
they would produce creatures that are very close to humans in physical
and mental abilities. This concept is similar to that of diluting
a poison.

Interbreeding humans with animals
would create misfits

The interbreeding of humans and gorillas would produce creatures
that would be misfits among both gorillas and humans. The creatures would
need their own society in order to
truly enjoy their lives. If we felt sorry for them and let them live with
us, then both of us would suffer.

Although humans and gorillas cannot interbreed, this type of situation
may have occurred many thousands of times between the different
races of human. There may have been thousands of rapes, kidnappings,
and seductions between different races. Furthermore, there were possibly
thousands of times when children became isolated from the adults, and they
were adopted by some other race who felt sorry for the lonely, hungry,
frightened children, creating an "ugly duckling" situation.

If we could analyze all of the people who are misfits in society today,
we might find that some of them are genetic defects, and some of them inherited
primitive qualities because they are descendants of mixed races
of people.

Would you want rats
and humans to
interbreed?

Imagine if it were possible for rats
and humans to interbreed, and imagine that some of the male rats were raping
or seducing some human women. Would you want the resulting creatures to
live in our society? Or would you want
them living in their own society? Or
would you want those human rats to
be executed?

Consider that there are various types of criminals and parasites all
over the world, and many of them are reproducing. When criminals reproduce
with other criminals, we could describe
the situation as "increasing the number of criminals" or as "breeding
a race of criminals". When criminals seduce honest people, then we
could describe the situation as "contaminating the human gene pool", or
as "causing the human race to degrade into savages".

Mel Gibson recently had a baby daughter with Oksana Grigorieva, but
did they produce a baby human? If Grigorieva
is a parasitic woman who was deceiving wealthy men for their money, then
Mel Gibson gave birth to a creature that's half human and half
devious
parasite. Furthermore, consider the possibility that Grigorieva is
working for the international network of criminals that is responsible
for 9/11, the world wars, and other crimes. In such a case, Mel Gibson
didn't produce just an ordinary "parasite". Rather, he created some type
of diabolical, sickening, disgusting criminal.

Future societies will
control reproduction

No society cares whether a woman is raising the child of a
rapist, or cares whether criminals seduce respectable people and contaminate
the gene pool. However, this situation cannot continue forever.
The societies that don't care about the quality of their children will
slowly degrade into retards, criminals, parasites, and freaks. Their economic
system will slowly deteriorate as the people become increasingly stupid,
parasitic, neurotic, lazy, irresponsible, and undependable. They will eventually
be dominated by more advanced societies.

The societies that dominate in the future will be those that show concern
about the quality of their children. They will pass judgment on who should
reproduce, and they will also prohibit women from raising the children
of rapists. Furthermore, when parents are discovered to have terrible mental
or physical qualities, society will take a close look at their children
and pass judgment on whether those children should be allowed to reproduce.
This article will explain why I make these claims, and what I believe will
occur in the future.

Some people believe that they have a right
to have children with whoever they please, but as I mentioned in my audio
file for 23_June 2010, technology
allows individual people to have an incredible effect on the entire planet,
and so now everybody needs to get involved with who is reproducing,
and with whom. Children are not the personal toys of their parents;
they are the next generation of people. The entire world needs to get involved
with the issue of the quality of the next generation of people. We should
not
tolerate the reproduction of people with horrible genetic qualities.

We have the intelligence,
but not the emotions

Can you
use your intelligence
to its full potential?

Understanding the differences and similarities between humans
and animals can help you to understand why
the world is such a mess, and how we
can improve it. There are possibly hundreds of millions of people
who have the intellectual ability and
creativity to devise improvements to our school system, or who could assist
in the design of beautiful cities that can handle the weather. However,
it takes more than intelligence to improve society. We need more
advanced
emotions. For example:

• We need the strength
to face the problems of the modern world rather than be frightened of them.
• We need the courage to experiment
with new economic systems, new government systems, and new holiday celebrations
rather than be afraid to fail or afraid to try something different.
• We need the desire to help society
rather than just titillate ourselves. This requires that we actually enjoy
being in gear in a machine who works for society rather than wanting to
be a pampered King who does whatever he pleases with no regard to his effect
on society.
• We must enjoy thinking, learning,
doing research, and discussing our problems rather than looking for ways
to avoid work and hoping that somebody else takes care of the problem.
• We must be able to resist
the bribes and blackmail traps of crime networks, and the offers from religions
of eternal life and salvation.

The world is not suffering from a lack of intelligence, or a lack of technology,
or a lack of oil. The world is suffering because most people are still
too emotionally similar to primitive savages. There are millions of people
who have the intelligence to improve the world, but not many people have
the ability and/or the desire to use their intelligence to its full potential.

Our emotions influence social
issues, but not technical
issues

Humans have achieved tremendous technical progress during the
past few centuries, and this is proof that our intelligence is far superior
to that of the animals. However, we haven't achieved very much social progress.
Our governments, schools, and holidays are still about as irrational, inefficient,
and/or corrupt as they were thousands of years ago.

Why can thousands of people can
get together in a large team to build
large ships or design computers but we can't get together in even a small
team to design a better economic system or a better version of Christmas?
Why can we solve technical problems but not social problems? Why are so
many people capable of having calm, serious, and intelligent discussions
about repairing an automobile or growing a vegetable garden, but when those
same people try to discuss abortion, euthanasia, crime, religion, and
other social issues, they grind their teeth, clench their fists, yell,
and/or pout?

The reason we can get together to deal with technical problems is because
our emotions are not stimulated by technical issues. Engineers, farmers,
scientists, and construction workers can use their full intelligence when
developing computers, building trains, or breeding new varieties of tomatoes
because our emotions don't get involved to influence our decisions. Our
emotions are in an idle state while we are dealing with technical
issues.

Our emotions developed a long time ago
in very primitive creatures, so you could visualize them as a group of
dinosaurs inside your mind. When we are gardening, solving a math problem,
fixing a broken window, or designing a refrigerator, all of our "emotional
dinosaurs" remain idle because those issues do not
stimulate any of our emotions.

However, when we think about certain issues, such as 9/11, abortion,
and religion, some of our emotions are stimulated, and this can be visualized
as some of the primitive, "emotional dinosaurs" inside our mind becoming
active, coming forward, and snarling in an attempt to influence
our decisions and behavior.

Your emotions are not stimulated when you think about breeding
tomatoes, or killing baby tomato plants, but they become extremely
stimulated
if you think about killing baby humans. Your ability to produce
intelligent thoughts about those issues is partly dependent upon the design
of that emotional center of your brain, and your ability to control those
emotions.

It might help you understand this concept if you consider the
issue of food. All of us have a conflict
going on within our mind every time we eat. Our emotions want us to eat
enormous quantities of food that tastes good, but the intellectual area
of our mind wants us to control our diet. The people who become fat, sickly,
anorexic, or undernourished are not necessarily stupid. Rather, for reasons
we don't yet understand, their emotions are dominating their decisions
more often than they should. Likewise, the people who come to idiotic conclusions
about abortion, religion, or crime are not necessarily stupid. They may
be equivalent to a fat person who cannot control his emotions.

When I was a teenager, I was under the impression that all intelligent
people would eventually reach the same conclusion after discussing an issue,
but the reason this doesn't occur in the real world is because even if
we all had the exact same intelligence and the same exact knowledge, there
will be subtle differences in our emotions and our ability to control our
emotions. For example, a man who has a greater craving to be the dominant
male, or less of an ability to control his craving, will have a tendency
to twist his opinions to make himself look good and make other people look
bad.

Crime gangs try to trigger our emotions of fear

When you think of your mind as having a conflict between an
intellectual area and an emotional area, then it might help you to understand
why some people become frightened over certain issues, such as 9/11, or
the Apollo Moon Landing scam. For example, in 2002, when I first started
telling people that we were lied to about 9/11, some people reacted by becoming
silent, and they seemed frightened at the thought that a crime
network could be that large and violent. They reacted like a rabbit that
wanted to run away and hide in the bushes.

Criminals will often behave in violent manners in order to trigger our
emotions of fear and cause us to run away. If you can understand this,
and if you keep your emotions under control, then instead of becoming frightened
by their violent displays, you will be able to remain calm and help to
identify, expose, and destroy them.

In order to be well adapted to this modern era, people need better control
over their emotions. People today need to be capable of remaining calm
when
somebody shows evidence that the Jews staged the 9/11 attack. We need people
to help identify, expose, and destroy their crime network. The adult men
who run away and hide from a discussion about 9/11 or the Holocaust should
be regarded as primitive savages who
don't belong in this modern world.

We sometimes treat friendly
people as enemies

Animals are designed to interpret interactions with other animals
as either friendly or not friendly. If they interpret the other animal
as not friendly, then they may respond by running and hiding, or
they may remain and defend themselves.

Humans also try to interpret our interactions with other humans (ie,
remarks, facial expressions, and behavior) as being friendly or unfriendly.
Unfortunately, our emotions were not designed for this modern world, and
so we sometimes make ridiculous mistakes when we follow our emotional feelings.
For example, in 2002, when I mentioned to my relatives that we were lied
to about the 9/11 attack, my mother, who considers herself a "conservative",
reacted defensively and accused me of being a liberal. Her sister also
reacted defensively, but since she considers herself a "liberal", she accused
me of being a Nazi. Both of them interpreted my information about 9/11
as an attack on America, and they defended America. Interestingly,
the men in the room remained quiet and looked frightened.

If we don't understand and control our stupid emotions, we might
react with anger towards people who are trying to help us.
We have to follow our intellect, not our crude emotions.

We sometimes treat enemies
as our best friends

The opposite situation
can also occur. Specifically, we might react to our enemies with
love
and kindness. Our crude emotions were not designed for a world in which
there are dishonest people. Our emotions interpret smiles, compliments,
and gifts as a sign that the other person is a friend who can be trusted.
As a result, criminals can easily manipulate us by faking friendship, and
by giving us gifts and compliments.

“Such adorable children!Here, have some candy.”

This is a serious problem with political elections. My grandmother
once mentioned to me that the reason she liked Ronald Regan is that he
smiles
a lot. In order to provide ourselves with better government officials,
we have to design a voting system that will compensate for this crude emotion.
We have to design a system in which the political candidates are judged
according to their achievements in life and their effect
on society. They cannot be allowed to manipulate people with compliments,
smiles, or gifts. For example, I would not allow the candidates to have
any
contact with the public, or allow them to produce any type of advertisement.
The candidates should be like ordinary job applicants;
ie, they should be in a submissive
role, and their appearances on television should be restricted to serious
discussions and analyses. Political candidates who make such remarks as,
"The American people are the greatest people in the world!" should be dismissed
as con-artists who are trying to manipulate our emotions.

In order to help a person, you have to show him where he is making
mistakes. You have to criticize
him. Unfortunately, our emotions don't understand this concept. Our emotions
interpret criticism as an attack by
an enemy. The end result is that people
who follow their emotions will do the exact opposite
of
what they should do; specifically, they become angry or disgusted with
the people who try to help them, and they
love
the criminal who gives them gifts and compliments. (I
have more information about this issue in my article about Katie
Piper.)

Most people don't have much of an
interest in society

A lot of the people I talked to about 9/11 were capable of listening
to the information, but they just didn't care
enough about society to want to do anything about it. Some of these people
were
victims of the attack! Some of
them suffered - and some are still suffering - serious
health problems as a result of getting the demolition debris in their lungs,
eyes, and skin, but they didn't want to expose or stop the crime network
that was responsible for the attack. All they were interested in was getting
some money for their medical treatment.
(If you are unfamiliar with the health problems caused by
the 9/11 attack, I have this page.)

Most people do not have much of an interest in society, and they don't
even care much for thinking about the future. Their primary concern is
titillating their emotions, just like a stupid animal. Even when we point
out to them that they are hurting themselves in the long run by allowing
a crime network to grow and thrive, they don't have enough of an interest
in the future or in society to care. They are more attracted to television,
alcohol, pets, jewelry, money, babies, and sex.

This lack of concern about crime networks and corruption was even more
common when I talked about the Apollo moon landing scam. Many people, especially
women, would listen to the information but they would respond with a remark
similar to, "I don't care about the moon."

Religious issues trigger emotions,
also

There are probably different reasons that the majority of people
cannot have calm, serious discussions about religion. Three of them are:

1) Humans and animals have a strong desire to follow an older
male, and this is why god is an old, male human. When we criticize
a person's religion, his emotions may interpret our remarks as an attack
on his leader, in which case he becomes fearful or defensive.

2) Some people seem to have trouble discussing religion because they
are using religion to make themselves feel better, similar to the way a
frightened child will cling to his mother or a teddy bear. People who are
having problems with life, or who are suffering from loneliness or low self-esteem,
can make themselves feel better by reminding themselves over and over that
God loves them and will take care of them. These people have trouble discussing
religion because they interpret critical remarks in a manner similar to
how a child would interpret an attack on his mother.

3) Some people use religion as a way to eliminate their guilt for their
horrible behavior. After they commit crimes, they ask their god for forgiveness,
and then they feel better. These people cannot tolerate critical remarks
about religion because they are using religion as a way of making themselves
feel better about themselves. When we criticize religion, we are forcing
them to face the possibility that they truly are disgusting people, which
upsets them tremendously, and so they fight back rather than have a serious
discussion. Religion allows them to convince themselves that they are actually
wonderful people.

I think that most people have the intelligence
to realize that organized religions are cheating people of their
money and protecting pedophiles and other criminals, but
I think most people are emotionally unable to face the fact that organized
religions should be eliminated. They have an emotional
attraction to religion, not an intellectual attraction.

Humans are too arrogant for our
modern era

I think every man is too arrogant for this modern world, but
I have met some men who have such extreme cravings to be important that
they have trouble discussing even ordinary technical issues. They often
interrupt discussions so that they can become the center of attention,
or they look for ways to make themselves appear educated, knowledgeable,
and intelligent, and make everybody else look like they are stupid or uneducated.
They're not truly interested in discussing anything. Instead, they
want to impress us. They want to intimidate
us. They want us to worship them. They are not concentrating on the discussion;
rather, they are concentrating on their image;
on how to make themselves look good.

These extreme men are often described as "know it alls", or as aggressive,
dominating, or intimidating. Some people describe them as "always having
to be right". When you show one of these extremely arrogant men that their
opinion is wrong, their reaction can be so extreme that I get visions of
how a woman would behave if you were to pull her baby out of her
arms and kill it in front of her.

Arrogance is a necessary quality for animals and primitive humans, but
humans need to evolve into a less arrogant creature. The men who are too arrogant
for this modern world will not make a good team member because they will
be overly proud of their own opinions and overly critical of everybody
else's opinions. In order to be an effective team member, people have to
be critical of themselves, and they must be able to look favorably at other
team members.

Most people are behaving just like
our primitive ancestors

Imagine that there is a complete video documentation of the
entire planet, including cameras inside everybody's houses, bathrooms,
and offices. Imagine that you have the time to watch the lives of millions
of different people. In such a case, you would discover that almost everybody's
life is extremely similar to everybody
else's life. Almost everybody sleeps for the same amount of time during
the night, for example, and almost everybody wakes up in a similar manner,
and then gets dressed in similar manner, and they do similar things in
the bathroom, and so on, all throughout the day. What is the difference
between different people?

If we could observe everybody's life, we would find that there is not
much of a difference between us. As I pointed out in another
file, many people are afraid that we will see what they do inside their
homes, but we can deduce what you are
doing in
your home simply by looking
at what
we do and what we have seen
other
people do. The "typical" people are almost identical to one another. Even
the mentally ill people and the criminals are similar to the normal people.
Even they eat, sleep, get dressed, and do other things in a very similar
manner to the rest of us.

The freaks
are "normal" during most of their lives

It's important to note that the most bizarre people of all,
such as Joseph Fritzl, spend most of their time just like everybody else.
They sleep like other people, get dressed like other people, do the same
things in the bathroom, eat food in a similar manner, and go shopping in
a similar manner, and drive an automobile in the same manner. The differences
between us are subtle. For example, we all move around during our sleep,
but to different extents, and we all make some noises while asleep, but
we make different amounts, and at different levels. We all eat food, but
we eat different quantities and have slightly different preferences in
food. We all clean our house once in a while, but there are subtle differences
in how we do it, and how often.

If we had video coverage of each person 24 hours a day, we would find
that each person appears to be an "ordinary person" during most of those
24 hours. It would only be on certain days, and only for small portions
of that day, that we would find some people doing strange things, such
as raping children, or getting together to stage terrorist attacks that
they can blame on Muslims.

Our primitive ancestors behaved
just like us

Perhaps more importantly, if there was video documentation of
our ancestors 10,000 years ago, we would find that people today are behaving
almost
exactly the same as our ancestors. The differences in our technology
make it appear as if we are very different, but our behavior
is actually very similar. For example, families thousands of years ago
would sleep in the same manner that we sleep, and for about the same amount
of time, and they would wake up in the morning in the same manner, and
at about the same time. Their children would spend the day in a similar
manner, such as running around and making noises, and the adults would
spend their day working. In the evening the people would get together to
relax, and some of the adults would work on projects, such as making tools
or clothing. Their technology was very different, but the behavior
of the people thousands of years ago was virtually identical to
the behavior of people today. We would have to go back in time possibly
a million years in order to find people who are so much mentally different
from us that their behavior was noticeably different.

Observing the evolution of animals into humans would show us that technology
changed dramatically during the past
few thousand years, but the behavior
of the people didn't change. Furthermore,
we would notice that as technology improved, an increasingly large percentage
of the population became unable to deal with the technology. For
example, as alcohol became more plentiful, an increasing percentage of
the population became alcoholics because they didn't have the ability to control
their consumption of alcohol. As cities grew larger in size, more men got
involved with rape, grabbing at women, and pedophilia because their sexual
cravings were overly stimulated and they didn't have enough control over
themselves. As material wealth accumulated, more people got involved with
theft, burglary, and other forms of crime because they were stimulated
by the material items but couldn't resist taking what they saw.

Social problems developed as technology
improved

As I described in other files, an analysis of the history of
the development of animals into humans would show us that the social problems
that we suffer from today did not arise
as a result of the devil, or ignorance, or aristocrats. Rather, the social
problems developed as technology changed the environment that people
were living in, which in turn caused an increasing percentage
of the population to become poorly adapted
to the new life. Our
ancestors became analogous to a group of fish who were originally living
in a beautiful pond of clean, fresh water, but then the weather changed,
and their pond began to slowly dry out, and eventually the fish were flapping
around in a mud pit. Fish in that situation would suffer, but there's nothing
we could do to relieve their suffering. The fish in that situation must
evolve to fit life in a mud pit. If we were to
feel
sorry for the fish who suffer the most, and if we were to help
them to survive, we would actually make the situation worse because
we would be allowing more of the unfit fish to reproduce, which would increase
the number of fish suffering in the next generation, thereby delaying their
inevitable evolution.

Likewise, humans began altering their environment with technology, and
today a lot of people are suffering. The human race must evolve from a
primitive savage to a more advanced human. We must remove the people who
cause trouble, and we have to restrict reproduction to the people who are
better adapted to this more complex, technically advanced world. If we
feel sorry for the humans who don't fit into the modern world, and if we
help them to reproduce, then we allow them to produce more children who
don't fit into this world, which simply delays the inevitable
evolution of the human race.

Only some of our problems are environmental

Some of the problems we suffer from today can be blamed on
environmental issues, and those particular problems can be reduced or eliminated
through education. For example, America is a haphazard mixture of different
races, religions, and cultures, and this is creating a society in which
people don't get along with each other, and some of us are speaking different
languages. This type of problem is environmental, and we can fix this by
making more homogenous neighborhoods and/or cities.

For another example, I think most of the problems that men and women
are having today are due to the Jews. They are encouraging feminism, and
they are constantly titillating men sexually, and they are encouraging
women to dress and behave like sluts. Therefore, by getting the Jews out
of our lives and putting better people in control of the media, schools,
and government, we can create a better environment, and then relationships
between men and women will improve.

However, even if we get rid of the Jews and make our cities more homogenous,
there are still going to be problems with life today because most people
are emotionally too similar to a primitive savage. Men, for example, are
not well adapted to the modern women who are very clean and wearing beautiful
clothing. A man's sexual craving was designed for the women of 10,000 years
ago who lived like animals. Our sexual craving is too strong today. The
men 10,000 years ago didn't have to control their sexual cravings, but
until humans evolve more appropriate sexual desires, we have to exert some
control over ourselves, and the women should help the situation rather
than aggravate it.

Married couples today also have to deal with a lot of other issues that
our primitive ancestors were never concerned with, such as alcohol, pets,
television, material items, jewelry, and video games. Most people are unable
to cope with the complexities of modern life. Feeling sorry for them will
not help. They must learn to control themselves because the suffering
will not stop until the human race evolves the emotional ability to deal
with this more complex, technically advanced world.

We need to evolve into a creature that can easily control himself around
alcohol, drugs, material items and gambling devices. We need to become
a creature that considers children to be young humans rather than as sex
objects or toys to play with. Men must evolve into a creature that can
see a woman as more than a sex toy, and women must evolve into a creature
that sees a man as more than just a source of support, babies, and entertainment.
We must also evolve into a creature that enjoys learning, thinking, and
discussing issues, and who truly enjoys getting together and working in
a team for the benefit of society. We must also evolve into a less arrogant
creature that can see the good qualities in other people and make compromises.

Most people are emotionally
unfit for our modern era

I don't think the world is suffering from a lack of intelligence.
I would bet that the majority of adult men have enough intelligence to
understand that organized religions are dangerous, that we must stop crime
networks, and that we must control reproduction. Most people also seem
to have the intelligence necessary to know that they should control their
alcohol consumption, gambling, and sexual cravings, but they have trouble
controlling their emotions.

I think the world is suffering because most people don't have the emotional
ability or desire to control themselves or deal with the problems of the
world. Most people don't want to think, do any type of research, or discuss
any of our social problems. Most people want to titillate themselves with
money, pets, sex, babies, food, and drugs. If it were possible to measure
a person's adaptation to the modern world, I think we would find that most
people are below the threshold necessary
for life today.

When humans have adapted to the
new world, they will be relaxed

Animals do not control themselves. After an animal wakes
up in the morning, it does exactly what it wants to do. It doesn't
follow any laws or have any concern for what other animals are doing or
thinking.

Our distant ancestors were well adapted to life. When they woke up in
the morning, they did exactly what they wanted to do. The men would look
for food or build a shelter, and the women would take care of children.
They didn't need laws or policemen. They did what they wanted to do, and
they treated one another in the manner that they wanted to treat each other.
They were relaxed and happy.

Today, however, people experience a lot of stress because we can no
longer do whatever we please. Since we are all different, some of us are
more relaxed than others, but all of us have to occasionally control our
cravings for food, material items, sex, or babies. We also have to occasionally
control our temper, and we often have to force ourselves to do something
that we don't really want to do. We are like fish flopping around in a
mud pit. We don't really fit this environment. When the human race has
truly adapted to this modern world, people will be much more relaxed. For
two examples:

1) FoodWhen humans have finally adapted to this modern world, they will be
able to eat what they want, rather than struggle to control themselves,
because their cravings for food will have adapted to a world in which there
is an enormous amount of food available. Their bodies will turn off the
signal to eat once they've had enough food, and they won't have such intense
cravings for sugar. They will have cravings for a variety of foods that
are healthy for them, and they will want to eat in reasonable quantities
rather than stuff themselves like an animal.

2) WorkMany people today have to force themselves to work because they don't
want to work, and they don't want to think or learn. They want to retire,
entertain themselves, and be pampered by servants. When humans have finally
adapted to this new world, they will not have fantasies of being pampered
by servants. Instead, they will have fantasies of getting together with
other people and working for the benefit of society. They will enjoy learning
and thinking.

Most people today cannot completely relax and enjoy life. They are usually
under a certain amount of stress because they are usually struggling to
control their emotions. A person who is truly adapted to his environment
will be able to relax and do as he pleases. He will be able to be his natural
self.

When a person cannot behave in his natural manner, it is a sign that
he doesn't fit his environment. Everybody should be
able to live the way they want to live. The people who cannot behave the
way they want to behave are misfits in this world.

We need laws to coordinate us, such as transportation systems and monetary
systems, but we shouldn't need policemen roaming the city to stop us from
stealing items or raping children. When humans have adapted to this modern
world, they will need laws only for purposes of organization and coordination,
not to prevent disgusting behavior.

Humans have entered a new
phase of evolution

Evolution cannot
be stopped; humans will
continue to evolve

Some religious fanatics claim that cockroaches, lizards, fish,
and other creatures are remaining the same century after century rather
than evolving, and therefore, evolution is nonsense. However, even though
a cockroach today may have the same appearance as a cockroach from millions
of years ago, they are not identical.
The cockroaches of today are more advanced,
and so are the fish, plants, and insects. Although it's possible for a
species to remain the same for quite a while, over a long period of time,
every species will improve because the competitive battle for life favors
a slow advancement. However, it's not easy for us to see some of the changes
because they are internal. The cockroaches
of today, for example, may be a bit more intelligent, or have a more efficient
digestive system, or have a greater ability to survive shortages of food.

In 2008, a professor of genetics in London, Steve Jones, promoted
the idea that the evolution of humans has stopped, and that the people
living one million years from now will resemble modern-day humans. However,
his dreary scenario doesn't make sense. Humans certainly have been interfering
with evolution during the past few thousand years, and especially during
the past century, but we cannot stop evolution. All we can do is
create temporary problems.

Consider an extreme scenario to understand this concept. Imagine if
every society decided to feel sorry for themselves and deliberately breed
themselves into freaks by sterilizing everybody except the criminals and
idiots. The end result is that every generation would be significantly
more stupid and dishonest than the previous generation, but after a few
generations, they would begin suffering a severe shortage of scientists,
engineers, bricklayers, dentists, electricians, and other skilled workers.
They would lose their ability to maintain their railroads, electricity,
airplanes, and automobiles. They would begin living in a more primitive
state, like the people of the Middle Ages, and at that point nature would
begin to take over the decisions of who lives and who dies. Evolution would
then resume.

However, no nation is going to deliberately breed themselves into freaks.
Instead, the subtle differences between the races and societies will create
the competition necessary to allow evolution to continue. For example,
if the women of one race have a slightly greater attraction to intelligent
men, and if the women of another race are slightly more attracted to men
who behave like puppy dogs, then eventually the women with the greater
attraction to intelligence will dominate because they will produce slightly
more intelligent children, and the other race will slowly breed themselves
into idiots.

Evolution will occur whenever there is competition,
and it doesn't matter how subtle the competition is. For example,
what is the difference between the way women in mainland China select a
husband and the way the women in Taiwan select a husband? What is the difference
between the way American men deal with crime and the way men in India deal
with crime? We may not be able to see the differences, but there are
differences. There are differences between people, and there are
subtle differences between societies. These differences allow for
competition,
and the competition allows for evolution.
We cannot eliminate the differences between us, so therefore, we
cannot stop competition or evolution.

Over a long period of time, the races and societies with even a subtle
advantage will eventually dominate, and the other races and nations will
go extinct. This has been happening
all throughout history with all animals, plants, and humans, and it will
continue
to occur no matter what anybody does. It is impossible to stop evolution.
We can interfere with evolution, but we cannot stop it.

The professors and scientists who regularly get publicity don't seem
to be very intelligent. Our schools are primarily a place to learn, not
to think, and so a lot of people are getting college degrees because they
are good at memorizing information, but they are not very good at
thinking,
and they are not honest, either. It's also interesting to take a
look at the organizations that these famous scientists and professors
belong to. For example, Professor Jones belongs to the British
Humanist Association, which is another organization that appears to
be diabolical attempt to infiltrate, manipulate, and dominate society.

The British Humanist Association was created by Harold
Blackham, who helped Jews escape Nazis. After the war he worked with
other Jews. He may have been helping the Jews simply because so many people
in that era had been fooled into believing the Jews were innocent victims
who need our help, but it is wisest to assume that people who work with
Jews are doing so because they are part of their crime network. Consider
people guilty until proven innocent.

Language
brought about rapid
evolution of intelligence

I suspect that when our primitive ancestors began developing
language,
they inadvertently brought an incredibly rapid
increase to human intelligence. The people less able to learn and use language,
and less able to pronounce words, were at a very serious
disadvantage. The groups of people with the greatest ability to use language
had a tremendous advantage, and they
would have dominated and evolved rapidly into an increasingly intelligent
human.

Evolution is normally very slow because the differences between one
child and another are so subtle that their differences in intelligence
don't have much of an effect on which of them produces the most babies.
However, language can change the situation because even a subtle difference
in intelligence can make a noticeable
difference in a person's ability to use language and pronounce words properly.
We can even see this today. Look at
how many of the people in the world today - including government officials
- appear to be intelligent, but some of them cannot use language properly,
and some of them have trouble pronouncing words properly. There is something
inferior
or defective about their mind and/or mouth, but we wouldn't realize
that they had a disorder if it were not for language. Language is very
complex, and it can expose even subtle flaws in a person's mind and mouth.

Modern technology will bring rapid
emotional
evolution

Technology has changed the environment that we live in, and
humans must and will adapt to this
new environment. Our distant ancestors competed primarily in finding food
and dealing with the weather. That type of competition put most of the
emphasis on physical qualities and
intelligence. Today nations
are competing to produce robots, computers, and high-speed trains. This
requires increasingly intelligent and talented scientists, engineers, technicians,
mechanics, and other skilled workers.

Furthermore, nations today must deal with social problems that never
before existed, such as organized crime networks, retardation, euthanasia,
organized religions, charities, nepotism, monetary systems, and governments.
This requires people who have the emotional ability to face problems rather
than hide from them like a frightened animal.

People today must also be capable of working in teams, and the teams
are becoming increasingly large and complex, and the teams must work for
the benefit of society, not simply for themselves. This requires people
who can be just an ordinary gear in a machine
as opposed to our distant ancestors who could behave like selfish kings
who didn't care about their effect on other people.

People today also must be able to provide themselves with leaders for
government, schools, businesses, and other organizations, as opposed to
our distant ancestors who didn't have to judge other people according to
leadership abilities, and who didn't have to analyze their leaders or deal
with incompetence.

Life is changing dramatically for
us. Our societies are no longer competing with one another to catch wild
pigs or build shelters for the winter. The competition between societies
is no longer physical. It makes no difference which race is the
physically strongest. The competition today is a battle of whose emotional
and intellectual abilities are better
suited to this complex world. Which society will be the best at reducing
crime? Which society will do the best job of providing themselves with
competent leadership in government, business, and science? Which nation
will do a better job of educating their children?

There are subtle differences between different groups of people, and
those subtle differences will allow the people with the slightly higher-quality
minds to eventually dominate. The nations that are less able to deal with
the modern world will slowly deteriorate, and those people will eventually
go extinct. Societies today must produce children with more advanced qualities
than those of a savage, but many women are reproducing with criminals, alcoholics,
parasites, and weirdos, and many men are only interested in women who are
pretty. The races and nations that dominate will be those in which the
men and women have higher standards for their spouse, children, and leaders.

Technology has altered our environment, and the human race will evolve
into a more advanced, less animal-like creature. Nobody can stop
this competitive battle, so nobody will be able to stop this evolution
from occurring. The nations that can't cope with these changes will destroy
themselves, and some races may go extinct, but other races will continue
to advance, and they will eventually dominate.

The human race is entering an era in which there will be rapid advancement
of emotions. Humans will
evolve into a truly more advanced creature that has more of a concern for
society, more of an ability to work together in teams, and more of an ability
to face problems. The era of crime networks, parasites, nepotism, monarchies,
and deception will end.

Humans will develop a greater interest in learning, discussing issues,
analyzing history, and considering their options for the future. Humans
will become less arrogant and more interested in critical analyses of themselves
and their society, and more able to look favorably at other societies rather
than fear other people as potential enemies. Humans will also evolve a
desire to earn their position in life
rather than look for ways to cheat, steal, deceive, intimidate, or lie,
and rather than beg for handouts, inheritances, and other forms of "charity".
Humans will evolve into a creature that can face problems rather than hide
from them. Humans will develop the ability to calmly
discuss and develop policies for abortion, religion, schools, elections,
crime, and euthanasia. Humans will evolve into a creature that is more
concerned about the quality of their
children, friends, spouses, leaders, and other members of society.

Don't worry that some nations are
destroying themselves

At the moment, every nation
is interfering with their evolution by allowing or helping the low-quality
people to reproduce. We are also allowing criminals to kill healthy people
and ruin our social environment, thereby interfering with marriages and
families. You may be able to see this during your own lifetime. For example,
I was a child during the 1960s, and America was a pleasant nation at that
time, at least in the areas where I was growing up. It seemed as if America
had tremendous potential to become an inspiration
for the entire world. Unfortunately, America was - and still is - full
of "Underdogs" who love to feel sorry
for losers, criminals, retards, and misfits of all types. The Jews exploited
this "feel sorry for me" attitude and tricked the Americans into
becoming an attack dog for Israel.

America is becoming dominated by criminals, idiots, retards, and parasites.
We are also losing manufacturing because businesses are having an increasingly
difficult time finding competent and honest management and employees. However,
as America slowly deteriorates, some
other nations, such as Taiwan, Japan, China, and India, seem to have slowly
improved
in some respects. The changes that have occurred during my lifetime are
subtle, but if this pattern continues over a span of centuries, America
will eventually self-destruct, and the other nations will become much better.

However, don't feel badly about the destruction of any nation,
or even the complete extinction of any race. In fact, I think that the
"Feel Sorry For Me" attitude is the
primary reasons that America is degrading. Americans are analogous to a
retarded
gardener who feels sorry for the weeds and the sickly plants,
and who ignores or kills the healthy plants. If America continues to promote
the idiotic concept that there is such a thing as an "Underdog",
or a disadvantaged group of people who are suffering from poverty
or ignorance, then America will continue to deteriorate.

There's nothing wrong with allowing defective people to live,
but Americans don't simply let them live. Rather, we allow them to get
into government offices, police departments, schools, corporate leadership,
and charities. When they get caught committing crimes or misbehaving, we
give them second chances, and third chances, and fourth chances. We also
allow retards to reproduce, even though
some of them are incapable of caring
for their children, and some of them don't want
to take care of their children. We don't care who
reproduces, and we don't care about the quality
of anybody's children!

A better society would keep the defective, parasitic, and destructive
people under control. Furthermore, we have to control people even if they
are our own children or parents. The
races and nations that can't deal with these and other issues are going
to slowly destroy themselves. And there's nothing
anybody can do to stop it.

Don't feel badly when a race or nation destroys itself. Consider it
as just another event in history to learn from. The destruction of a nation
is similar to the bankruptcy of a business that didn't adapt to modern
technology. Businesses, nations, and other organizations must adapt
to changes in life. The organizations that can't adapt to changes are going
to suffer. Don't feel sorry for them. That will make their problems worse,
and it doesn't do you any good, either. Let them destroy themselves. When
a business fails, the employees shouldn't cry. They should simply create
a new business or find other jobs. Likewise, when a nation destroys itself,
consider it as an opportunity to learn
from their mistakes and create a better nation.

Through destruction comes opportunities. Through death comes life. Let
nature take its course; let the crude nations disintegrate. Don't feel
sorry for losers! Protect the valuable people, and let the savages,
criminals, parasites, and freaks destroy themselves. Don't try to fight
"nature". In the long run, nature will win, and the more advanced humans
will dominate. Be part of the winning team, not the losers.

Freedom must be controlled

We should have freedom in our
private
life but not our public
life

If we consider "freedom" as being able to do and say whatever
you please, then we have to distinguish between freedom in your personal
life and freedom in society. People can have a lot of freedom in their
private
lives, but when a person does something that has an effect on other
people, he should not be free to do whatever he pleases. People
should not be free to hurt other people.

For example, we can give everybody the freedom to write documents, paint
pictures, and make music for their private use. However, when a person
sells or distributes his paintings, documents, music, or other creations,
or when he plays music so loud that other people are forced to listen to
it, or when he creates smoke or fumes that other people have to breathe,
or when he takes his pet dog into public locations, then he is affecting
other people, and society has a responsibility
to ensure that he is contributing to society rather than hurting it.

Artists should not have "artistic
freedom"

Many artists complain that they want "artistic
freedom" to do as they please rather than create the art that
other
people want. Since virtually everybody today has to either work in a team,
or do work for other people, everybody
can complain that his creativity is being suppressed because he is forced
to
follow orders like a slave. However, don't feel sorry
for the people who complain about being "a gear in the machine". Artists
should not be free to force their art on us. If we don't like somebody's
art, that is his problem, not ours.

There are lots of people with artistic talent who are quietly working
among us and using their artistic talent to design products, create technical
illustrations, make murals, and write songs, but we don't notice them because
they are not whining about needing
artistic freedom, and they are not pushing idiotic or disgusting art on
society. They are working with us,
not fighting with us.

I suspect that the artists who whine the most about needing
artistic freedom are those with the most serious mental disorders and
that they are producing some of the most worthless
art. As I mentioned
years ago, we can and should
pass judgment on what is art and what
is trash.

Here
is a list of some "street artists" with links to their art, and here
is Guerilla Art Gallery's most expensive art, which I assume is the "best"
of their art. However, most of us don't like any of that "art".
The artists who have trouble dealing with criticism react with anger, pouting,
or hatred, and some of them accuse us of not understanding art, or of being
Nazis who won't give them artistic freedom. However, we should not
feel guilty that we don't like somebody's art, and we should
not
feel sorry for the artist.

You wouldn't feel sorry for a carpenter who produced worthless furniture,
so why feel sorry for an artist who produces worthless art? All of us routinely
pass judgment over whether we like the way engineers
are designing telephones, automobiles, and cell phones, and we can
and should pass judgment over whether
we like the songs, paintings, or sculptures of an artist. Don't
let the artists intimidate you.

A statue? Or toilet
humor?

If we feel sorry for the psycho artists
and let them do whatever they please, then we end up with the art that
they
like, but I think they have a tendency to produce disgusting
art. It seems that all throughout history the type of artists who whine
about needing artistic freedom are psychotic people who cannot work with
other people or produce art that we like, and when we feel sorry for them,
we end up with disgusting art. For
example, in the 1500s an artist created some stone statues for the
Bomarzo
Monster park in Italy, such as the statue (photo)
of Echidna,
a woman from Greek mythology. Her legs are snakes.

Some people justify that type of sculpture on the grounds that it is
an aspect of ancient Greek culture, but there were lots of other, more
pleasant aspects of ancient Greek culture that we could create statues
for. In the previous file of this series, I mentioned that the media gave
Miley Cyrus publicity for smoking Salvia, but that was a very small event
in her life. They didn't have to give her any publicity, or they
could have given her publicity for something else
that she did that was more admirable. Imagine an extreme example. Imagine
if some television reporters installed a video camera in the toilet that
Miley Cyrus uses, and then they broadcast the video on the television news
and justified it with such remarks as, "Well, our
job is to provide the public with information about what our celebrities
are doing, and Miley Cyrus was on the toilet many times that day!"

The same concept applies to art. There are lots of aspects of ancient
Greek society to create statues about, but that particular artist was attracted
to a few of their idiotic religious stories. Furthermore, he chose to put
that woman in an idiotic position. I don't think he created any of those
statues to help us get a better understanding of ancient Greek society.
I think he and other artists are psychotic
people, and that they are attracted to the bizarre, perverted, and disgusting
aspects of human life. They create toilet humor because they are attracted
to that type of "art". They are not creating this type of art to help us
understand human history or culture.

The same problem occurs with songs.
A lot of songs are about people pouting, hating, fighting, or expressing
childish sexual cravings. Why can't we have songs that are pleasant?
It seems as if most of the people who want to become musicians and songwriters
are miserable people, not people who
enjoy life. Many artists promote the concept that an artist must suffer
in order to bring out their talent, and it is true that terrible events
in a person's life can give him ideas for movies, songs, stories, paintings,
and sculptures, but wonderful events can be inspirational, also.

I think the reason that so many artists are suffering and unhappy
is because many of them are mentally ill,
and I can think of two reasons why so many artists are mentally ill. One
possibility is that certain types of mental disorders cause people to become
artists by preventing the intellectual portion of their brain from functioning
properly, thereby allowing their emotional area to dominate their behavior.
Another possibility is that some mentally ill people become artists simply
because there are not many other jobs that they are capable of doing. This
is especially true of the people who produce "modern art".

Everybody can create modern art, even monkeys.
This
video shows monkeys at an Amsterdam zoo drawing pictures that are sold
to visitors. Nobody can distinguish between the drawings of those monkeys
and the modern art that is at a museum. It should be obvious
that "modern art" doesn't require much intelligence, or even the ability
to read, write, or do arithmetic. There is no "skill" involved in modern
art. There is no "talent". It is not even possible to distinguish between
modern
art and trash.

Regardless of why so many artists are miserable, we can and should
pass judgment on whether we want a
person's art. An artist should make society more pleasant. We cannot please
everybody, of course, but we have to set standards. We shouldn't let the
artists intimidate us into thinking that we are Nazis when we complain
about their art. We don't have to tolerate art that we consider to be unpleasant.

Some artists push propaganda
on us

Marco Evaristti created "Rolexgate",
which is a sculpture made from diamonds and gold that shows a train of
Jewish skeletons entering Auschwitz. Supposedly, 80% of the sculpture is
made from the gold that was taken from the teeth
of Jews who died in the Nazi camps.

As with other artists, Evaristti shows symptoms of mental illness, such
as the dinner he served for his best friends in which he added some fat
that had been removed from his body during a liposuction operation. There
is nothing "wrong" with considering the human body as a food source, but
I don't think he put fat in his pasta dinner for a "sensible" reason. I
think he is mentally ill.

Artists who try to manipulate or deceive us are criminals, and they
should be treated just like every other criminal. They should be removed
from society. We are fools to allow Rolexgate to be described as "art".
It is Jewish propaganda, and Evaristti
should be removed from society for being a con
artist. We should not tolerate abuse from anybody, not
even the artists. We should pass judgment on whether somebody's artwork
is improving society or making it
worse.

Why should artists own
their creations?

When a person develops a new food recipe, he is not
allowed to demand royalties from you when you use his recipe. Dentists
cannot demand royalties every time we use the teeth that they fixed for
us. However, artists expect to get
paid royalties every time people play their songs, movies, and television
shows, and lots of artists have copyright notices on the photographs and
other artwork that they post on the Internet. Some musicans today play
the music of
Mozart and expect to get
royalties. To make the situation more ridiculous, there are people in the
entertainment business who expect royalties when all they do is package
the songs or movies. They don't create any of the art, or even have the
talent
to create it.

Why should artists own their artwork? Who benefits from this policy?
We shouldn't design society to please the artists. We should design society
for the human race. If society does not benefit from allowing artists to
collect royalties or copyright their art, then we should not
do it. What would you think if a mathematician copyrighted geometry or
trigonometry and demanded royalties every time somebody uses his math functions?

In Germany, an organization that represents musicians is demanding
that kindergartens pay a fee when they copy certain music. The fee is insignificant,
but remember the concept of the "Love
Locks"; specifically, if we allow a person or organization to abuse
us, then they or somebody else will likely do the same or similar abuse
in the future. We can't allow people to abuse us even to a small extent,
but instead of standing up to this abuse, the nation of Turkey is currently
trying to figure out how to protect their national anthem from that German
organization. Why should we be afraid
of these parasitic people who demand
royalties?

I cannot see any justification for allowing artists, and especially
the people who only package the art,
to collect royalties. I don't think that artists should be allowed to own
their artwork or copyright it. Society provides the artists with food,
electricity, homes, and other products and services. Every artist can work
for a living during his entire life,
just like the rest of us. We don't owe them pampering just because they
are "creative". Besides, everybody can claim to be "creative". Carpenters
are creative, and so are bricklayers, and so are engineers.

If entertainers were government
employees, we could improve
their work

Our current economic system doesn't provide support for artists,
scientists, software developers, or other people who create intangible,
intellectual or artistic material, but we could alter our economic system
so that people who create these intangible products are just employees
of society, and in return, their creations become available to the entire
human race.

I think it would be best if the government took control of art and entertainment.
Songwriters, musicians, and actors could work for the government as employees.
They wouldn't own any of the art that they produced. Everything they produce
would go into the public domain, which would allow everybody to produce
modifications of their songs, paintings, and theatrical productions. Nobody
would have to worry about copyright infringement.

One of the reasons I think we should be able to make our own versions
of other people's artwork is because a lot of their art is disgusting,
but it could be turned into beautiful
art if it was changed a bit. Some songs,
for example, need to have only a few of their words changed, and some statues
and paintings need only a small amount of alteration to transform them
from toilet humor into something much more pleasant.

For example, consider the song Have
Yourself A Merry Little Christmas. That song was written for Judy Garland
to sing in a movie, but she and other people considered the song to be
too depressing, so they had to plead with the artist to rewrite it and
make it more pleasant. Years later Frank Sinatra insisted that another
line in the song be changed, and years after that another singer changed
one of the lines. If the artists were just ordinary employees, they
could be told to rewrite it, or some other artist would rewrite
it for us, or any of us could do the changes ourselves.
We wouldn't have to plead with the temperamental or psychotic artists.

A lot of people have the talent to modify
an existing song, but not many of us have the ability to create
a song. By letting all artwork be available to the public, we could modify
existing songs into one or more variations. The songs would slowly evolve
through the years into a variety of songs that we prefer more than
the original. It would be similar to how engineers make variations and
improvements to scissors, shoes, cameras, computers, refrigerators, and
airplanes. We would also be allowed to make variations of theatrical productions,
music, statues, and even photographs.

Artists should either join
society, or be evicted

Some artists may claim that because they created their art,
that they have a right to control it and do whatever they please with it,
but their creations are not truly their
creations. Society provided them with food, electricity, and other products
while they were developing their art. If an artist was living alone
on his own planet, then he would be justified in claiming that everything
he does is his own, but every artist is living in a society that
is providing him with support, and that makes each artist nothing more
than
gears in our machine.

If an artist wants total control over something he creates, then he
should keep it to himself in his own home. If, on the other hand, he expects
society to provide him with money for his art, then his art should belong
to society, not to him. If an artist doesn't want to share his art
with us, then we shouldn't share our electricity, food, or city with them.
We should evict those psychos to the "Land of Misfit Artists".

Imagine if carpenters insisted that nobody be allowed to alter any of
their furniture, or if engineers insisted that nobody be allowed to modify
anything they create. We shouldn't put up with any
psychotic, arrogant, or irrational behavior from anybody.
All artists should be told that they either join our society as
an ordinary person and contribute to it, or else find some
other society to live in.

Let everybody, including
children,
have "food freedom"

Everybody in the world today has the freedom to eat whatever
they please, and in whatever quantity, and as a result, many people are
becoming fat, sickly, or anorexic. We also have the freedom to post food
related videos on the Internet. For example, I posted
a couple of my own, and a Neanderthal in Canada has many videos
of his highly unusual food creations. Since I propose a lot of government
influence over sports, art, and other fields, you might think I'm going
to propose the government control everybody's diet, but I don't think that
makes any sense.

Some people want the government to get involved with our diet in order
to prevent the stupid and neurotic people from hurting themselves and their
children. For example, in Britain there are suggestions that the government
use money
as a reward to help people lose weight, and there is a proposal for
school teachers to check
the lunches that children are bringing to school to make sure that they
are eating proper food.

There are sensible reasons for requiring schools and restaurants to
follow certain guidelines in regards to food production, but I don't think
the government should try to control our diet for two primary reasons:

1) It is impossible
to control people's diet, especially children. Inspecting a child's lunch is a waste of time because the child may
throw away the best food. Providing children with nice meals doesn't guarantee
that they will get proper nutrition. This is a serious problem for school
cafeterias, also. If the schools in America that I have personally seen
are typical, then I would estimate that more than
half of the food that is produced for elementary school children
is thrown in the garbage. We are wasting a lot of food and resources,
but most adults are either ignoring this issue, or oblivious to it.

I think a better policy is for schools to teach children about food
and health, and for society to provide everybody with easy access to a
continually updated database about health-related issues. Also, the so-called
health experts should reduce their arrogance by a few orders of magnitude
and be honest about which issues they are fairly certain of, which they
are not certain of, and which they are extremely confused about. For example,
instead of telling us that we must drink 20 glasses of water a day, they
should be honest and admit that nobody knows whether we should force
ourselves to drink any water.

2) We should not pamper defective
peopleBy providing everybody with access to honest information about health,
we can tell people to eat whatever they please. The people who become fat
or sickly should be regarded as unfit
for this modern era. The ideal situation is to let people be the way they
want to be, and then restrict reproduction to the people who have the better
qualities. Forcing people to follow a certain diet is putting a lot of
stress on them, and it is a burden on society. The ideal situation is to
let people behave in their "natural" manner, and if they turn out to be
destructive to society, we remove them, and if they only hurt themselves,
then they could live with us but they shouldn't be reproducing.

We have to control the diet of a young child, but once children enter
school, they should be taught about food and nutrition. Some children will
be too stupid to understand the concepts, and some will be unable to control
their emotions, and some children won't care about health. The children
who cannot control their diet should be regarded as unfit for this
modern world, and they should be prohibited from reproducing. We have to
become like a gardener. We have to take care of the healthy children
and stop feeling sorry for the misfits and retards. The human race has
to evolve into a creature that can deal with this modern world.

Some people will respond that we should control everybody's
diet because the people who become sickly are a burden on society.
While this is true, controlling people's diet is also a burden on
society. I don't know which burden is worse, but I think the best policy
is to give people as much freedom as possible so that they can behave in
their natural manner. It's difficult to control people, and they
don't
like being controlled. I think it is better to let people have as much
freedom as possible, and if they hurt society, we remove them, and
if they hurt themselves, we let them suffer.

The Australian Medical Association points
out that most of the men in Australia are overweight, and that the overweight
people are putting a tremendous burden on the Australian health care system.
They propose "shock tactics" to help
people lose weight. However, we don't have to feel responsible for people
who hurt themselves as a result of their inability to deal with food. For
example, when a person becomes so fat that he gets stuck in his bathtub,
we don't have to waste our time or resources helping him out of his bathtub
and taking him to a hospital. We could tell him that he can sit in his
bathtub until he loses weight, and if he dies in the process, that is his
problem. We should not feel sorry for people who are obviously incapable
of coping with the modern world. We should take care of people who are
valuable.

Everybody should have the ability to take care of himself. We
should not feel responsible for people who cannot cope with the
modern world. We should not feel guilty that they are mentally defective.
It's not our fault that their brains
don't function very well. We don't owe them anything.
Feeling sorry for them isn't going to help, anyway. We have to start controlling
reproduction so that eventually all people are capable of taking
care of themselves.

“I relish the freedom to express my
opinions without some would-be, present-day version of Nazi propaganda
minister Joseph Goebbels looking over my shoulder and telling me what I
can say and what I can’t say.” - Mike Reagan (here)

Note that the people who oppose high standards of behavior
will often complain that such policies are Nazi policies. Get into
the habit of analyzing what people say and passing judgment on whether
they:a) provide intelligent arguments, orb) try to stimulate our emotions.

Should the Internet be regulated?

According to this
poll in November 2010, most people are afraid that allowing the Internet
to be regulated would allow the government to promote a political agenda.
Michael Reagan, the orphan
who refers to himself as Ronald Reagan's son, wrote this
idiotic article in which he complains that the FCC "wants
to get its grasping hands around the throat of the Internet". Here
are some concepts to keep in mind:

1) Our governments are disgusting

As of today, we have a good reason to be concerned with government
regulations because every nation's government is full of criminal Jews
and their puppets. The Jews are already trying to make it illegal for us
to analyze the Holocaust, and we certainly wouldn't want those disgusting
Jews to play any role in creating regulations for the Internet.

However, do not fear the concept
of government regulations. The proper reaction is to expose and
stop
the criminal Jews, and stand up to all
of the other corrupt government officials. We should try to improve
our situation, not hide from the criminals. Get into the habit of looking
for ways to improve life rather than trembling in fear of the government
or the crime networks. We need to take an active role in our future and
start experimenting with changes.

For example, instead of insulting government leaders or being afraid
of them, we should start experimenting with better methods of selecting
government officials. The voters are doing a terrible job of selecting
government officials, and our election system is very easily corrupted.

2) The Internet is just a communication
method

Some people treat the Internet as if it is a different type
of universe in which rules don't apply. They believe that we should have
complete freedom to do whatever we please on the Internet. In reality,
the Internet is just another form of communication. As of 2010 we have
such methods as our voice, paper, television, CD-ROMs, radio, and DVDs.
Regardless of whether we spread information with our voice, paper, television,
or the Internet, we should follow certain standards, such as rules
that prohibit slander, libel, deception, manipulation, and abuse.

Furthermore, the Internet allows us to spread information faster
and easier than any other method. Therefore, we should be more
concerned with what people put on the Internet than what they say with
their voice, or what they print on paper. If a person is deceiving people
in verbal conversations, he can only
deceive a small number of people. However, if he puts deceptive
information on the Internet, he can
rapidly deceive billions of people around the world. Therefore,
we should be more concerned with what people are putting on the Internet
than what they are saying in conversations. Television is also a very effective
communication method, and so we must be very concerned about the information
that is broadcast over television.

Therefore, instead of providing people with the freedom to use the Internet
in any manner they please, we ought to be very
concerned that the information on the Internet meet the same journalistic
standards as information that is broadcast on television or printed in
paper publications. Of course, our standards for television and paper publications
are very low, which is why the Jews
can so easily get away with publishing Holocaust propaganda, UFO nonsense,
toilet humor, and lies about the Apollo moon landing.

3) Only criminals
need to worry about standards
of behavior

I suspect that the people who demand freedom on the Internet
are actually criminals. I can't believe any adult is so stupid as
to truly believe that he wants people to have the freedom to post whatever
they please on the Internet. Consider an extreme example. Would you want
a person to have the freedom to post information about you on the Internet
that was false? And imagine if they
were also manipulating photos and audio files in order to hurt you.

The people who complain about laws, government regulations, and standards
of behavior don't have any intelligent reasoning to support their complaints.
They are not discussing the issue; rather, they are trying to manipulate
our emotions, often by making references to Nazis. They are
trying to make us afraid of the government. Don't let people manipulate
you. Tell people to stop the Nazi remarks and either say something intelligent
or shut up.

4) We need to stop criminals,
not "the government"

The "government" and its "regulations" are intangible concepts.
There is no reason to fear a concept. The world is not suffering as a result
of concepts. The world is suffering as a result of the specific
people
who are killing, murdering, cheating, blackmailing, kidnapping, and deceiving.
Every one of those criminals has a name and address, and each of
them can be arrested or killed.

For example, there are some Jews trying to prohibit investigations of
the Holocaust, and some Jews want to stop people from exposing the Jewish
involvement in the 9/11 attack. It's not "the government" that wants to
stop discussions about the Holocaust, it is specific Jews, and each
of those Jews has a name and address. We could arrest or kill each
of those Jews.

We don't have to fear "the government". We have to deal with the criminals
who are scattered among us and who are causing trouble for us. As soon
as we start removing the criminals, the world will become noticeably more
peaceful, and the governments will become more honest, and the media will
become more respectable.

The Internet must
be regulated, and we should raise
our standards

It doesn't matter whether a person spreads information with
his voice, a piece of paper, a DVD, a television show, or the Internet.
Everybody who creates information should follow certain standards of quality.
Furthermore, I think we should raise
the standards for journalism. For example, I don't think people should
be allowed to post information anonymously. Whether people put information
on the Internet, the television, or a magazine, the authors should be identified.
I cannot think of any sensible reason to allow people to put information
on the Internet anonymously.

The Internet has thousands of anonymous websites and articles, and most
of the anonymous articles are propaganda about such issues as the Holocaust,
crop circles, and UFOs. By comparison, the people who are posting intelligent
information are identifying themselves. They're not
ashamed or embarrassed of what they are doing. Actually, people
who create intelligent information are proud
of their accomplishments.

We don't need to fear standards for journalism. Rather, we should be
discussing what the standards should be. It's not easy to set standards
for something as intangible as information, but we can do
it. As soon as we start experimenting, we will begin the process of learning
how to do an increasingly better job. Doing nothing, however, gets us nowhere.
We have to do something; we have to take an active role in
controlling our future. We have to stop being frightened, passive animals.

There will
be a common language

Eventually all humans will speak
the same, more advanced language

I doubt if many people today would be interested in creating
a better language for the human race, but this will
happen at some point in the future. The reason I am certain of this is
because history shows a trend towards a common language. Here are two concepts
to consider:

1) Language is becoming increasingly
complex
and irrational

The development of language would have been so slow that we
could not actually say when it began, but if there had been video surveillance
of the Earth during the past few million years, we might be able to identify
a point in time at which we could say that a group of humans had finally
started the development of a language. Animals make noises every day, but
they are simply following their emotional cravings. The difference between
making emotional sounds and speaking a language is that we are speaking
a language when the intellectual part of our mind is putting sounds together
in a specific sequence to represent some concept. It's possible that the
very first time somebody put sounds together in such a manner, that nobody else
understood what he was saying, or perhaps there was one other person in
the group who was intelligent enough to figure out what was happening.

The very first sentence to be spoken may have consisted of only two
words, or perhaps three words. However, the development of language would
have had an incredible effect on the evolution of the human mind. The people
less able to speak would have been at a very serious disadvantage. Therefore,
once language began, the human mind would advance very rapidly.

As the centuries passed, more words were added to the language. Eventually
there were hundreds of words. However, even a thousand words is not very
many. It would have been easy for our primitive ancestors to know every
word in their language. And since the languages were simple,
it would have been possible for people who spoke different languages to
eventually understand one another. Learning a foreign language thousands
of years ago was considerably easier than it is today, even though the
people long ago were less intelligent.

Today there are tens of thousands
of words in our languages. It is possible that nobody today knows all of
the words in his language. Actually, our languages are so chaotic and confusing
that we can't even be certain how many words we have in our language! For
example, we have words that were created thousands of years ago but are
never used today. Do they count as words in our language? Or should we
eliminate them? And what about the words that have more than one meaning?
Do they count as one word, or as several words? For example, the word "light"
refers to electromagnetic radiation, the weight of an object, and many
other concepts. Does that word count as only one word in the English language?
Or do we count each meaning as a word?

As future generations learn more about the universe and develop more
technology, they will create even more words. Unfortunately, the creation
of words is occurring in a haphazard, chaotic manner, and this is making
all of our languages even more confusing. For example, sometimes people
take an existing word and use it for a new concept, thereby giving an existing
word a multiple meaning.

We are also making our language unnecessarily difficult by creating
new words that are very similar to existing words. Instead of adding new
sounds to our language, we are simply combining existing sounds into new
words. This creates words that are very similar to one another. It would
be better if we were to take words from foreign languages, or take some
of their sounds, so that more of our words are noticeably
different and unique. For example, we could eliminate the word "complement"
and replace it with the German word "erganzen" so we don't get it mixed
up with "compliment". For another example,
we could refer to the metal that we call "lead" with some unique foreign
word, such as the Spanish word "plomo", so that the words "led" and "lead"
can be used only to refer to what a leader
does. The words "descendent" and "descendant"
are also confusing.

Another problem with many languages is that foreign words become incorporated
into their language but are not properly adapted. For example, the words
data
and datum have been added to the English language, which is acceptable,
but we retained the Latin version of those words rather than adapting them
to English. The experts of the English language tell us that data is the
singular version and datum is the plural version. This is ridiculous because
it doesn't follow the rule for plural nouns in English. These "experts"
are not experts. They are fools who are defending an irrational language.
We should make our language sensible, not mix grammar from different languages
and create a confusing, irrational language.

The Chinese language is a good example of a language that is unnecessarily
complicated. The Chinese are fools
to put such a burden on their children. They gain
nothing from this burden. If you think I'm exaggerating, compare
a Chinese person in China to a Chinese person in America who knows only
English. How does a Chinese person benefit by knowing the Chinese language?
How is his life better than a Chinese person who only knows English? The
Chinese do not benefit in any way from
their primitive language. In fact, they are suffering
from it. The Chinese people who grow up in America and learn only English
have a lot more time during their childhood for other activities.

Some people in France boast that their language has the nicest sounding
words, but every language has words that sound nice, and every language
has words that are unpleasant. I've heard Jews
ridiculing the "disgusting" sound of the German language, but have you
ever heard Hebrew? I think Hebrew is more disgusting than German,
and I don't think it's because I'm biased against Jews. I think the reason
the Jews complain so much about the Germans is because the Jews are envious
of Germans.

People should stop being proud of their language. All languages have
unpleasant sounds, and every language is crude and irrational. A language
is just a tool to communicate with.
It doesn't matter which language we speak. It would make more sense for
us to get control of one of our languages, and develop it
into a truly sensible language. Then we could boast about our achievement.

2) Children must learn more
information every year

Thousands of years ago a child had almost nothing
to learn in order to become an adult. Today a child has to learn a lot
of information in order to get a job and fit into society. The children
of the future are going to have to learn much
more information. The burden on children is increasing.
Eventually it's going to make sense to start reducing
the burden, but how can the burden be reduced? One way to reduce
the burden is to create a simplified, worldwide language. By simplifying
the language, children would be able to learn it much quicker, and by having
only
one language for the entire world, nobody would have to waste
their time learning foreign languages.

In 50,000 BC it would have been easy for a child to learn several
different languages, but languages are becoming more complex and confusing
every year. The languages of the future will have even more words
than they do today. It's becoming increasingly ridiculous to expect children
to learn more than one language.

According to some websites, such as this,
there are more than 6000 variations of spoken languages, more than 2000
written languages, and about 300 languages that have dictionaries on the
Internet. The human race does not benefit by maintaining all of these irrational,
haphazard languages, and we do not benefit by having children around
the world wasting some of their childhood on the learning of foreign languages.

We are fools to continue a practice that is a burden on
us, and the longer we wait to change this idiotic situation, the
more difficult it will become. The
metric
system is an example; the Americans are foolishly putting a burden on themselves
by continuing to resist it.

The world would be friendlier
with only one language

I think there would be a tremendous psychological
benefit if everybody in the world spoke the same language. It
would make the world seem much friendlier.
The people in Japan, Hungary, and Tibet wouldn't be mysterious "foreigners";
rather, they would be "people" that we can talk to, and who seem to be
just like us. It would be a bit more difficult for somebody to instigate
a war.

When we speak different languages, we become isolated from one another.
Americans can see this right now by looking at how differently we feel
towards Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia compared to other nations.
The nations that speak English seem to be full of friendly
people, whereas the other nations are full of foreigners.

The nations that almost none of us have relatives in, and which speak
a language that almost none of us understand, such as Hungary and the Czech Republic,
tend to be completely ignored. The toxic sludge that Hungary
suffered from in October 2010 is an example of how different languages
are causing trouble. Do you know even one
person who can speak Hungarian? How
many Americans have any idea what is going on in that nation? A couple
years ago there were violent demonstrations in Hungary regarding their
government, but what was that about? They are
isolated
from us because we cannot speak to each other.

Millions of Americans should understand the value of everybody speaking
the same language because millions of us have spent years living and working
in close contact with people who don't speak English. This is not merely
a ridiculous situation. Rather, it is equivalent to putting
dirt
into a transmission; it's like
mixing
oil and water. People in a modern society have to become like
gears in a machine. However, we can't cooperate
when we can't communicate with each
other.

Incidentally, a man in Europe, after reading my remarks about the Americans
who cannot properly pronounce some of the words in the English
language, told me that one of the German leaders couldn't properly pronounce
some of the German words. If everybody in the world spoke only one language,
then we would notice that some people in foreign nations are not
speaking properly.

Our thousands
of languages are drifting aimlessly
through time

There are thousands of languages in the world today. Nobody
can be certain how many languages there are because the quantity
of languages depends upon how different two
languages have to be before they count as
two
languages rather than one language.
For example, there are several variations of English in Britain, and there
are different variations of German in Switzerland, Austria, and Germany.
Do the Swiss speak a version of German that is different enough to count
as a separate language?

All languages have been changing haphazardly, and they are still changing.
If they continue to change, then the people a thousand years in the future
will not be able to understand what any of us are writing today. Have you
looked at the Canterbury Tales, which were written during the 1300s
by Geoffrey Chaucer, who was living in London, England? This
page has one of his stories with a translation to modern English. It was
written only 600 years ago, but notice
that it is almost impossible for us to understand his version of
English. Will the English language continue to change this rapidly and
extensively? If so, the English-speaking people 600 years from now will
not be able to understand what you and I are
writing or speaking!

Our nations
drift aimlessly through time, also

Another important lesson to learn from history is that nations
are as unstable and as unpredictable as businesses and marriages. Nations
are constantly undergoing internal changes, and occasionally they self-destruct,
split into pieces, merge with other nations, or become dominated by foreigners
or other nations. Nations are not stable
organizations because they don't have high quality leadership, and none
of the people in any nation are dealing with their problems. Everybody
in the world is very passive. They don't take control of their culture.
They don't make their life what they want to be. They don't try to determine
their future. No nation is even bothering to control immigration, reproduction,
pollution, or crime. We allow our economy, holidays, sports, language,
and all other aspects of our culture to drift about aimlessly.

If we don't change the course of the human race, then the nations 1000
years from now will be very different from what they are today, and the
languages will be completely different. And imagine what the Internet
will be like after 1000 years of haphazard changes. We cannot understand
the English, French, or German that our ancestors spoke in 1100 AD, and
if this trend continues, the people in 3100 AD will not be able to understand
what any of us are saying. And if this
trend continues for another thousand years, then the people in 4100 AD
will not be able to understand any of the documents or videos from people
of 3100 AD.

It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that at some point in the
future the people are going to get fed up with the thousands of
constantly changing languages. At some point the human race is going to
decide to take control of its nations
and languages rather than be passive animals
who allow nations and languages drift aimlessly through time.

Humans do not
want to change their language

Unfortunately, humans are like trains on track. We don't want
to change anything. We have to be forced
to change. At the end of World War II, both Japan and Germany could have
been forced to teach English to their children. The adults would have continued
speaking Japanese and German, but English could have been phased in during
less than four generations. Today,
more than 60 years later, all of the younger people in Japan and Germany
would be able to communicate with us. After one more generation, they would
be able to make English their primary language.

I think it would have helped the world tremendously if Japan and Germany
had been forced to phase in the English language. Since those two nations
are very significant to the world, it would have allowed the most technically
advanced nations to freely communicate with each other without wasting
time or resources on translations, and it would make our nations become
more friendly. Furthermore, it would put pressure on the other nations
to learn English. This would make it easier for the entire world to eventually
switch to just one language.

However, instead of making Japan and Germany switch to English, we divided
Germany up into four pieces, as if it was a pie for the world to eat,
and I'm not sure what we did to Japan. Actually, I suggest that the Japanese
take a serious look at the people who came to their nation at the end of
World War II. Some Americans may have been truly interested in helping
Japan recover from the war, but now that I'm aware of how the Jews are
manipulating America and Europe, I would bet that the Jews were trying
to infiltrate, manipulate, and destroy
Japan. I doubt if the Jews were interested in helping Japan. When have
the Jews ever helped a nation?

Which language is the most confusing?

After reading my remark in another file about how the Chinese
and other languages are primitive and should be abandoned, a man in Europe
sent me a message that he heard that the Chinese language is more vague
than European languages, and as a result, the Chinese get into more disputes
over the meaning of their business documents. I don't know if this is true,
but if it is, the Chinese ought to be embarrassed.

If it were possible to measure the "confusion factor" of each
language, we would find that languages fit the typical Bell
curve. Most languages would be typical
in their confusion factor, but one language would be the most
confusing of all, and one would be the least
confusing. Which language is the most confusing?

A lot of people boast about their nation's technical achievements in
computers, high-speed railroads, rockets, automobiles, or robots, but no
nation yet boasts about their achievements in social technology. No nation
is boasting that they have developed a language that is the easiest to
learn and the most accurate, and no nation is boasting that they have developed
the most efficient economic system, or the most useful legal system. There
is still no serious research or development to develop a better school
system, or a better system for selecting government officials, or a better
monetary system. And there is no attempt to improve language, either. In
fact, most people want to keep their language exactly as it is.

The concept of "Unicode"
is making things worse,
not better

When I first started developing software in the 1980s, almost
all of the computer software was designed under the assumption that we
were using languages with less than 256 characters. Recently Borland, and
I suppose Microsoft and others, have put a lot of time and effort into
developing software that supports the languages with thousands of
characters. They refer to this as "Unicode".

I think we are simply delaying the inevitable by supporting
different languages, especially the primitive
languages that have thousands of characters.
It is acceptable for the Chinese to use their primitive language, and it
is acceptable for the Egyptians to use hieroglyphics, but they should be
using those primitive languages as their secondary
language, not their primary language.
The world would be much friendlier and more efficient if we all had the
same primary language, and if we all used the same calendar, clock, measurement
system, and number system. Did you know that the people in Germany are
putting decimal points where Americans put commas, and they
put commas where we put decimal points? Why can't everybody use the same
number system? At the end of World War II, the Germans could have been
told to use decimal points and commas in the same manner as the Americans.

Ideally, we would develop a simple and more accurate language. It would
be taught to children as a secondary language, and after a few generations,
everybody in the world would know it, and then the entire world could make
it the primary language for everybody. At that point there would be no
need to teach children their original, primitive language. Only historians
and people interested in language would be interested in learning the original,
crude languages. However, we don't have to develop a completely new language.
It would make more sense to improve a language that is already in widespread
use, such as English. For example, we could get rid of the irregular verbs.
Consider the verb "be". It would make more sense to use the verb like this:

Either use "is":

and "was":

Or use "be":

and "been":

I is...
He is...
She is...
They is...
We is...

I was...
He was...
She was...
They was...
We was...

I be...
He be...
She be...
They be...
We be...

I been...
He been...
She been...
They been...
We been...

A person who already knows English wouldn't
have to go to school to learn this more sensible version of the verb. In
fact, many children use the words in that manner by mistake.

The English language also has words with syllables that nobody uses.
For example, most people ignore the first "R" in the word February,
and most people pronounce "poinsettia" as "pointseta". So
why not improve our language? We don't benefit
from
the chaos; rather, we put an unnecessary burden
on our children and on the schools. Although people today are not interested
in improving language, it will certainly happen at some point in the future.

We could simplify the words for
our numbers

The most primitive aspects of our numbers are those that are
the oldest, namely, the first 20 numbers. From the number 40 onward, with
the exception of 50, the numbers follow a very simple pattern. The numbers
40, 60, 70, 80, 90 are the words four, six, seven,
eight,
and nine with the letters TY
after them. Therefore, we could simplify our number system by using this
pattern for all of the numbers. So,
after 9 would come "Onety" rather than
ten,
and then "Onety one" rather than eleven,
etc.

8 Eight
9 Nine
10 Onety
11 Onety one
12 Onety two

18 Onety eight
19 Onety nine
20 Twoty
21 Twoty one
22 Twoty two

30 Threety
40 Fourty
50 Fivety
60 Sixty
70 Seventy

Not many people today would want to change the names for numbers,
but do not assume that life will remain as it is today. There may be a
time a few thousand years from now at which the people decide that they
have had enough of the chaos and decide to simplify their number system.

Speculations on where the human
race is headed

The history of humans shows
us trends

Comparing animals to humans, and looking at the history of
human societies, can give us an idea of how we are evolving, and where
we are heading. Here are a few of my assumptions on where the human race
is going.

We will enjoy
other cultures and races

Humans are capable of enjoying the variety of plants and animals.
We don't hate a particular plant because it wants more nitrogen
than another, and we don't criticize an animal because it wants a warmer
or colder environment than some other animal. We accept and enjoy
the differences between the animals and plants. We do not try to force
all of the plants and animals to interbreed and become just one variety
of plant and one variety of animal.

However, at the moment, there is still a tendency to force all people
into a "melting pot" and become just one variety of people. We still have
a fear of people who are different from us. We want everybody to dress
like us, eat the same foods, and follow the same religion. However, I think
humans will continue to lose their fear of other people and eventually
we will reach the point of development at which we do not merely tolerate
different cultures; rather, we will be able to truly enjoy
different cultures, just as we enjoy different flowers.

It would be nice to have all societies compatible in certain
areas, such as our number system, economic system, and language, but we
don't need the same clothing styles, music, food, or even sports.
For example, the photo shows a portion of a cover album of the Chinese
musical group, 12_Girls_Band,
and their clothing, music, and instruments are different from those of
American musicians. Some Americans may have trouble dealing with those
differences, but eventually I think people will enjoy
the differences between cultures.

Incidentally, notice that the 12 Girls Band has an English version of
their website, and it is slightly inaccurate. For example, what does the
word "unsmooth" mean in this sentence:

Their inaccurate translation is another example of how the human race is
wasting time and resources by maintaining thousands of different
and primitive languages. Governments and businesses waste a lot
of their time and money on translations, and schools waste a lot of resources
and time on the teaching of foreign languages. These languages are putting
a burden on us, but none
of us benefit from this burden. At some point in the future,
the human race will become advanced enough to realize that they should
control
their crude emotions that cause them to be proud of their language,
and develop a more sensible language for the entire world.

There will be less tolerance of
destructive
and
parasitic
people

Humans have a tendency to hide
from or tolerate the parasitic and
destructive people. Another example that's in the news right now are the
people complaining about the Google Street View photos. There are so
many people complaining that the Wikipedia even has an entry called
Google
Street view privacy concerns. A woman in Japan is embarrassed
that her underwear can be seen hanging on her washing line, but anybody
walking or driving down the street would see her clothing on the washing
line, and in much greater detail. Some people are afraid that criminals
will use the Google photos, but hiding from criminals is not
the solution. The solution is to deal with the
criminals.

As of today, almost everybody in the world reacts to crime and corruption
by becoming fearful and hiding, like a frightened rabbit. However, the
situation cannot occur forever. When
people hide from criminals, they allow crime to continue, and they allow
crime networks to grow. They allow their society to be destroyed.
Therefore, the societies that have the greatest tendency to hide from criminals
will destroy themselves more quickly. To rephrase that concept, the societies
that are better able to face criminals and eliminate crime will
dominate
in the long run.

The human race will eventually evolve into a creature that doesn't
hide from corrupt government officials, corrupt school officials, or
even corrupt policemen. The humans of the future will identify and eliminate
criminals. The future humans will have an interest in the
quality control of the people.

Reproduction will
be restricted

Now that we are preventing nature from killing the defective
babies, the societies that are less able to deal with the issue of restricting
reproduction will degrade at a faster pace than the societies that are
more concerned about the quality of their children. To rephrase
this concept, the societies that have more concern about the quality of
their children will dominate. Humans will evolve into a creature
that is capable of passing judgment on who among them will reproduce.

The issue is actually very complicated because we have to analyze
an enormous amount of physical and mental qualities and then try to determine
who's got a better mixture of qualities. For example, the man in the photo
is putting suction cups on his back for some type of sexual activity. This
man is not hurting anybody, and he may not hurt himself, either. Therefore,
there is no reason for society to stop him from doing this, and he has
no reason to hide what he is doing. However, we should pass judgment on
whether we want people like this to reproduce. He may have lots
of wonderful qualities, but do his other qualities compensate for this
type of behavior?

There are other people suspending
themselves on hooks, as if they are pieces of meat at a butcher shop. We
have to decide what we want the human race to evolve into. We have to make
decisions on what type of behavior we want to see in the next generation
of humans. We have to pass judgment on what type of behavior is "normal".

This
man needed medical help when he got a ring stuck on his penis. There are
also lots of businesses that provide S&M services, and sometimes there
are accidents at those businesses, such as the math professor
who was in a coma for three days. Do we want these type of people reproducing?
Is this what we want the human race to become? As of today, these people
may be a small minority of the population, but imagine if we allow them
to reproduce and they become the majority.
Imagine living in a nation in which 90% of the adults must visit the hospital
every
week for treatment as a result of some sexual activity that went wrong.
Imagine that there are so many people in comas as a result of S&M activities
that went wrong that thousands of extra hospitals have to be constructed.

If the human race continues on the path that it is on right
now, these bizarre sexual activities will
increase, and eventually most of the people will be involved with
them. Is that what you want the human
race to become? Have you ever looked at a catalog of sexual toys that are
available
today? If we continue on
this path, there will be more sexual problems in the future, and
more
variations of sexual toys, sex robots, pedophilia, gay bath houses, farms
that provide sex with animals, and sex with dead bodies at morgues. Have
you ever seen the variety of S&M activities and products? If you don't
want to look at the actual toys, such as boyfetish,
then take a look at the Wikipedia articles, which are more descriptive
than pornographic:
• BDSM• Sex toys

If we allow people with strange qualities to reproduce, then
the next generation will have even more of the strange qualities, and their
strange qualities will be more extreme. When we allow ugly people
to reproduce, we are allowing more ugly people
to
be created, and that creates more people who dislike themselves
and want cosmetic surgery, makeup, and pity. Over a long period of time,
the human race will become increasingly ugly. We must be concerned about
the quality of the next generation.
We also have to stop criminals from
reproducing.

As of today, most people believe that they are being nice
when they allow everybody to reproduce, regardless of their ugliness, preferences
for food, sexual habits, criminal behavior, and personality disorders,
but the societies that dominate in the future will be those that are capable
of understanding and following the same rules that farmers follow when
they breed plants and animals. The societies of the future will be capable
of analyzing everybody's physical and mental characteristics and passing
judgment on which of them should be allowed to reproduce.

The world will
become "patches of human flowers"

Animals consider other animals as potential
enemies, but humans are evolving into a creature that considers
other humans as
friends. This change
in attitude will have a significant effect on the world because if you
can think of, for example, a Japanese person, as one of nature's many beautiful
"human flowers" in the Earth's garden, then you will be able to enjoy
their different clothing, hairstyles, food, and other culture, just as
you enjoy the variety of plants in a garden.

We want everybody in the world to cooperate
for the good of the entire human race, but we don't
need to force everybody to wear the same clothing, eat the same
foods, or have the same social activities. We don't even need the same
school system. Actually, it would be beneficial to encourage people to
experiment with different school systems, sports, leisure activities, and
other culture in order to inspire people into looking for ways to improve
their lives.

The boundaries of our nations are arbitrary, and they have been changing
haphazardly all throughout history, and the large nations consist of a
variety of different races. I think future generations are going to come
to the conclusion that our national boundaries are idiotic. The people
in the future may develop some impressive ideas on how humans should divide
up the planet, but as of today I think the best solution is, as I described
a few years earlier, that we create large cities that are physically
separated from one another, and which are allowed to be culturally different,
but which are required to follow certain compatibilities so that we are
economically compatible. With this concept, a nation such as Japan might
become several dozen cities. America might become a few hundred different
cities.

Allowing different cities to develop different culture would serve a
very
important purpose. Specifically, it would allow us to observe
one another's school systems, social activities, sports, architecture,
foods, and other social technology, which in turn would give
us ideas on what we might like to experiment with, and
it would
inspire us to improve our
own culture. It's not possible for somebody to figure out the "best" culture.
It's better to let different cities experiment,
and we then observe the results.

If you haven't seen the variety of artwork in Japanese
lunches, search for "bento
art"

Our cities could become "gardens
of architecture"

Once we start encouraging discussions about how to improve
our cities and our culture, we will certainly devise all sorts of interesting
concepts that nobody has yet imagined. For example, a city could be designed
so that different areas have different architectural styles. One section
might have what we in America describe as "Southwest", another section
might be "Cape Cod", and another section might be "Victorian".

One area of the city might have lots of walls made from abstract patterns
of colored glass.

Another area might have floral patterns sandblasted onto glass sheets
or blocks.

Likewise, the parks of
a city could be different. One park might be a mixture of large fields
of grass and tall trees, and another park might be serpentine walkways
that wander around botanical gardens and picnic areas, and another park
might be dominated by artificial creeks and small lakes and plants that
like water.

An advantage of this design for a city is that as you travel around
the city by foot, bicycle, or in a little rowboat on the artificial canals,
the architecture and parks change slightly, thereby providing variety.
You wouldn't have to travel to other cities simply to see different types
of parks or architecture. One large city would provide a lot of variety.

Remember: we cannot achieve perfection,
but we can improve
our situation!

Planning and designing a large, advanced city requires a lot
of men to work together and make compromises. I think millions
of men have the intelligence and the artistic ability to create very nice
cities, but I don't think many men have the emotional ability. I
think that only a small percentage of the human population is capable of
working for the benefit of society.

In the city I live in, there was a time many years ago when some of
the city officials wanted to fix up a very ugly section of the city, but
none of the business owners could agree on anything, and eventually the
idea of fixing the city was abandoned. When "ordinary" men are put together
and told to design a city, most of them are too interested in themselves
to develop policies that other people would be interested in. Furthermore,
most men are so concerned with feeling important that they treat their
opinions the way a woman treats her baby. They don't want anyone criticizing
their opinions, and they don't like facing the possibility that somebody
else has a better idea. We don't like to compromise.

I think it's going to take some effort to find men who are capable of
working together for the good of society, but I think we can do it. As
I pointed out in other files, don't worry about achieving perfection. If
we can bring improvements to the world, then we have accomplished
a
lot. And we can certainly improve our situation considering
that culture is haphazard and chaotic. How could we not
improve upon total chaos?

Humans must now control each
other

We must deal with our true enemy

We are wasting a lot of resouces and engineering talent on
the creation of gigantic militaries to protect ourselves from people who
have no desire to attack anybody!
America does not need to fear the Russian people, and the Russians do not
need to fear the American people. If every nation would start going
after the true enemy of the world,
we could start reducing our giant stockpiles of military weapons.

The only people who are a potential
danger to the world are those that are defective
or more like a savage. And they are
a threat to all nations, not just some
nations. Furthermore, we are continuously producing these crude
and defective people simply because we are doing nothing
to control reproduction. We don't even stop women from raising the babies
of rapists.

Our militaries are protecting us from people who don't want to attack
us. Every nation should turn its military on the criminals that
are scattered within their own nation. We need to analyze the people
we live with and pass judgment on who among us is a valuable, contributing
member to society, and who is destructive. Those destructive people
are the only enemy the world has to
be concerned with.

We have to stop being so nice with people who are hurting us. We don't
feel sorry for guide dogs that bite or misbehave, and we shouldn't feel
sorry for destructive people, even if they are our children, relatives,
friends, spouse, or neighbors. The rule everybody should follow is very
simple: Either be a responsible citizen and contribute to society, or
get out! Once we remove those destructive people, there will be
peace.

The societies that dominate will
have
quality control
for people

All animals are healthy simply because the mentally and physically
defective animals tend to be the first to die in the competitive struggle
for life. Unfortunately, a lot of defective humans have found a way to
survive through crime, religion, charities, nepotism, inheritances, and
marrying people who will take care of them. These criminals are breeding
themselves. Furthermore, lots of stupid and mentally defective
people are surviving and reproducing
because of government welfare, begging, or private charities.

This
page has pictures that show people in India praying and washing themselves
in the river, while sewage, trash, and even dead
bodies drift by, and are eaten
by dogs.

Note: the author, Max,
criticizes the Indians for using water instead of toilet paper,
but water cleans better. Try cleaning a baby without water.

Every nation can be visualized as a garden that is smothered
by fungus, weeds, and parasites. If we continue on our current path, the
idiots, criminals, and parasites will eventually become such a burden,
and the human gene pool will have been so contaminated, that our nations
will begin to lose their ability to maintain our high level of technology.
It will become increasingly difficult to find engineers, technicians, carpenters,
dentists, and other people with skills. The economy will begin to deteriorate,
and the nation will begin to degrade to something more primitive. Eventually
nature will start playing a greater role in killing the retards, criminals,
parasites, and excess children. This in turn will improve the mental and
physical health of the human population, which in turn will allow the nations
to begin advancing once again, and then the cycle could potentially repeat
itself.

However, I don't think the human race is going to continue on this path.
I think there are enough people in the world today who can understand these
concepts. I think a lot of people can see that we are in the process of
degrading right now. Businesses all over the world are having trouble
finding people with skills, and who are honest and reliable. There is
no shortage of people, but there is a severe shortage
of people with skills, honesty, and responsibility. The world is becoming
dominated by criminals, parasites, retards, and weirdos.

We cannot continue on this path.
We do not really have any options. Either we
take control of the human population, or nature
will take control for us. That is not much of an "option". Nature is extremely
brutal, so we should take control.

We must manage society with our
intellect,
not our emotions

Today we have to manage society with our intelligence, not
our emotions. We can't judge people by whether we "like them". We can't
worry about being "nice". We have to keep our emotions under control, analyze
everybody's effect on society, and
calmly pass judgment on whether they are a beneficial
member of society. If they don't fit
into our society, then they have to be exiled to some other society
or an area for unwanted misfits, or they have to be executed. We
also have to make decisions about who reproduces.

We should control our emotions so
that we can kill and
exile people

America supposedly has more than 2
million people in jails. When America became an independent nation
in 1776, there was about 2.5 million people, and that's counting the children.
There are enough people in America's jails to create a small nation, or
a gigantic city. Some of the criminals are waiting to be executed, but
we have such inhibitions about killing them that they usually remain in
jail for years before they are executed. And when we execute them, we make
a big, expensive production of it. Who benefits by keeping all of these
people in jail? And who benefits by delaying their execution?

Some people point out that we shouldn't execute criminals because many
of them have turned out to be innocent, but that doesn't justify allowing
criminals to live. That justifies making changes to the legal system so
that it becomes more honest and more useful.

We have to face the fact that there is no "solution" to the problem
of crime. There are only "policies", and every one will be unpleasant
to our emotions. We have to keep our emotions under control and select
the unpleasant policy that makes the most intellectual
sense. I think we should execute the
dangerous and mentally ill criminals, and sterilize and exile the others.

The people who become hysterical over the issue of exiling or killing
people should not be regarded as "loving" or "kind". They should be regarded
as savages who are misfits in
our modern world. A person who cannot exile or kill criminals is equivalent
to a person who is covered by ticks and fleas, but who refuses to remove
the parasites because he thinks that killing them would be "murder". That
type of person is not kind or loving. There is nothing "wrong" with killing
people who are destructive.

The Jews encourage us to kill and
hate

The Jews constantly encourage
us to kill, fear, and hate Muslims, Nazis, Chinese, Koreans, and other
people. Did you listen to the excerpt of the Jew in Florida, Jordan Dern,
who gave a lecture to other Jews about sustaining the hatred and anger
of Germans?
The audio is at this page.
We are fools to allow people to sustain a hatred of anybody.

When the Jews instigate fights between us, and the fights are not as
violent as the Jews were hoping for, they make sarcastic comments, such
as when Jake Gyllenhaal complained
that the American soldiers didn't do much during the 1991 war in Iraq other
than masturbate.
(I
mentioned Gyllenhaal in Part 8 here.)

Don't be intimidated or frightened by these aggressive, crude, and disgusting
Jews. Don't let them trick you into thinking that it's wrong to kill criminals.
For centuries, maybe thousands of years, they have been killing us, kidnapping
us, cheating us, and deceiving us into marriage. It's either us
or them.

We must be able to kill retards,
also

This video
provides an interesting view into the Schofield family, who have a schizophrenic
daughter. Why should anybody be forced to raise a child like this? Furthermore,
why should they be allowed to raise
children like this? These defective children are never going to fit into
society, and they are potentially dangerous. You wouldn't want people raising
devils,
so why should we allow people to raise potentially dangerous, mentally
defective humans? Furthermore, if this schizophrenic girl gets pregnant,
what sort of creatures will she produce?

The people who claim to love retarded people don't truly love them,
and they don't want any of them as a spouse, friend, coworker, or neighbor. Rather,
they are simply following their crude emotions to take care of everybody,
especially children. Also, we love to titillate our emotions by telling
ourselves that we are heroes for taking care of retarded people. However,
allowing these people to live is putting a burden on parents and society,
and the retarded people never truly enjoy life. Some of the retarded people
don't even understand the concept of life. They are just existing, like
a stupid animal.

Now that humans are using technology to prevent nature from killing
the defective and unwanted people, we have a lot of complex issues to deal
with. The people who cannot have serious discussions about controlling
reproduction and killing retarded humans should not
be regarded as loving or kind people. They should be regarded as primitive
savages who cannot control their emotions and think seriously
about the problems of modern society. Those people are like dirt in
a transmission. Don't let them intimidate you into thinking that it
is you who is cruel or lacking in
compassion. It is them who have the
problem.

We could develop machines
or drugs to kill
people

Since we don't like the idea of killing people, we should develop
a machine to execute criminals. We should stop making a production of executing
criminals and make it quick and simple. Of course, before we allow such
machines to be used, we need to develop a much more honest government and
legal system. We wouldn't want our current disgusting, Jew-infested legal
system and government to have the authority and machines to kill people.

We should also develop better methods of euthanasia. We should not be
forcing people to suffer a slow death when they want to get their death
over with quickly and painlessly. We have to stop thinking that killing
is wrong. Killing is a part of life. All of us are going to die, and many
of us are going to have a very slow and miserable death. We should have
the option to die when we want to. Perhaps we could develop a drug that
we could drink that quietly puts us to sleep and then kills us.

The world will
become a garden of human societies

Humans are evolving into a more
cooperative species that is concerned about the quality of life.
Humans will cleanse the world of
destructive people and create a peaceful, beautiful "human garden".

Help speed the process up
so that you and I can enjoy it!

Important message:

Help counteract the propaganda!Free videos at my site: www.HugeQuestions.com